recognizing legislative action for scoring presentencing guidelines convictions in response to State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 , 323 P.3d 846 [2014], modified by Supreme Court order September 19, 2014
How later courts described this case
- recognizing legislative action for scoring presentencing guidelines convictions in response to State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 , 323 P.3d 846 [2014], modified by Supreme Court order September 19, 2014
- reaching merits of defendant's sentencing challenge relying on State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312, 319 , 323 P.3d 846 [2014] [Murdock I], when defendant "filed a motion with [the Supreme] [C]ourt to correct an illegal sentence" after review was granted in his direct appeal
- reaching merits of defendant's challenge to State v. Murdock , 299 Kan. 312 , 319, 323 P.3d 846 [2014] [ Murdock I ], when defendant "filed a motion with [the Supreme] [C]ourt to correct an illegal sentence" after review was granted in his direct appeal
- "[C]lassifying a prior conviction or juvenile adjudication based on the classification in effect for the comparable offense when the current crime was committed complies with the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Johnson, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the majority’s result, based solely upon our revision of the hold *592 ing in State v. Williams, 291 Kan. 554 , 244 P.3d 667 (2010), whereby we now determine the person/nonperson offense designation of a prior conviction by looking to the designation statutorily assigned to the comparable crime at the time the current crime of conviction was committed. That change eliminates the troublesome circumstance of Kansas having no person felonies prior to the enactment of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act. Accordingly, I view the majority’s exercise in statutory interpretation— presumably to vindicate the view espoused by the dissent in State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 , 323 P.3d 846 (2014), modified by Supreme Court order September 19, 2014—as unnecessarily (and dangerously) complicating and adulterating the process. I dissent from that superfluous portion of the majority opinion.
Biles, J., joins in the foregoing concurring and dissenting opinion.
* * *