Preview:

No. 102,233 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. MATTHEW M. HINES, Appellee.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. In determining whether a case presents substantial and compelling reasons for imposing a departure sentence, a court may consider the following: (1) the offense of conviction, (2) the defendant's criminal history, and (3) the purposes of the sentencing guidelines.

2. A victim's request for leniency may, in some circumstances, be a substantial and compelling reason to warrant imposing a departure sentence.

3. Under the facts of this case, the sentencing court's sole reliance on the victim's request for leniency was not a substantial and compelling reason in granting the defendant's departure sentences below the statutory minimum for attempted seconddegree murder and aggravated battery when the defendant pled guilty to two violent, serious, and intentional felony offenses and when there was no showing that society will be protected by the concurrent departure sentences of 24 months or that the concurrent departure sentences of 24 months will deter others from committing like crimes. 1

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; ERIC R. YOST, judge. Opinion filed August 6, 2010. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, for appellant.

Janine Cox, deputy appellate defender, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellee.

Before STANDRIDGE, P.J., GREEN and HILL, JJ.

GREEN, J.: Matthew M. Hines pled guilty to attempted second-degree murder and aggravated battery of his wife, Charmaine Hines. The two convictions presumptively required a minimum prison term of 61-71 months or a maximum prison term of 99-114 months. The trial court determined that Charmaine's request for leniency was a substantial and compelling reason for departing from the statutory prison term and imposed a prison term of 24 months for each conviction and ordered that the two sentences be served concurrently. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court inappropriately considered a factor that was not substantial and compelling

Download State v. Hines.pdf

Kansas Law