Preview:

No. 104,697 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DANIEL PROCTOR, Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Under the facts of this case, imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision on this defendant, as provided in K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 22-3717(c)(1)(G) and K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 75-5217(c), violates the prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment in the United States and Kansas Constitutions.
Appeal from Saline District Court; RENE S. YOUNG, judge. Opinion filed July 6, 2012. Sentence vacated in part and remanded with directions.

Michelle A. Davis and Carol Longenecker Schmidt, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Christina Trocheck and Charles Ault-Duell, assistant county attorneys, Ellen Mitchell, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before LEBEN, P.J., PIERRON and ATCHESON, JJ.

ATCHESON, J.: In this case, the court must address the constitutionality of a sentence potentially subjecting Defendant Daniel Proctor to lifetime postrelease supervision and, in turn, to imprisonment for life without parole if he were later to commit any felony, including a property crime otherwise calling for probation. Proctor 1

faces that prospect because he pled guilty to a sex offense--aggravated indecent solicitation of a child--for which he has received a permissible guideline sentence of probation. For Proctor, a man in his early 20's, the statutory sentencing scheme could put him behind bars for 50 years if he were to shoplift a $1,000 ring or computer or to write a bad check for them. Given Proctor's circumstances and the peculiarly harsh result that could be inflicted on him, the sentence violates the protections against cruel and unusual punishment contained in

Download State v. Proctor105922 In re Marriage of MerrillUnpublished Opinions.pdf

Kansas Law