State v. Walter, 117,324

Decision Date18 May 2018
Docket NumberNo. 117,324,117,324
Citation55 Kan.App.2d 621,419 P.3d 651
Parties STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kenny Bruce WALTER, Appellant.
CourtKansas Court of Appeals

Ryan J. Eddinger, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Shawn E. Minihan, assistant district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before Bruns, P.J., Hill, J., and Walker, S.J.

Hill, J.:

In this appeal, we must decide if the sentencing court erred when it calculated Kenny Bruce Walter's criminal history score when it scored two Missouri burglary convictions as person felonies. By using the "identical or narrower" test recently adopted by our Supreme Court, our legal conclusion differs. We hold that the elements of the Missouri statutes for first- and second-degree burglary are not identical to, nor are they narrower than, the Kansas burglary statute. Thus, the sentencing court erred by establishing and using an incorrect criminal history score. We vacate Walter's sentence and remand for resentencing with directions that his two Missouri convictions must be classified as nonperson felonies when computing his criminal history score.

Walter objected to the convictions' classifications.

Walter pled guilty to aggravated battery, a severity level 7 person felony. Citing State v. Dickey , 301 Kan. 1018, 350 P.3d 1054 (2015), he objected to the classification of his two Missouri burglary convictions as person felonies. The sentencing court overruled his objection and, based on three person felonies in Walter's criminal history, found his criminal history score was A. The court then sentenced Walter to 30 months in prison.

On appeal, Walter contends that his Missouri convictions are not comparable to any form of burglary in Kansas. In opposition, the State makes alternative arguments, first contending that the Missouri and Kansas burglary statutes are comparable and then arguing the term "inhabitable structure" found in the Missouri statute actually contains alternative elements, not alternative means and is thus comparable. By following the guidance of our Supreme Court, our analysis leads us to reject the State's arguments.

A brief review of some sentencing principles is helpful at this point. In order to follow the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines properly, a sentencing court must know two things: the severity level of the crime of conviction and the criminal history of the person committing that crime. With the knowledge of the severity level and criminal history score, the calculation of a sentence can begin. Adjustments to the sentence, required by various specific sentencing rules then follow. The policy in Kansas is clear. Crimes against persons are more serious and thus lead to longer sentences than other crimes. That is why the classification of an out-of-state criminal conviction is important.

Whether an out-of-state conviction is treated as a person or nonperson crime is based on the classification of the "comparable" Kansas offense in effect at the time the current offense was committed. If Kansas does not have a comparable offense, the out-of-state conviction is classified as a nonperson crime. See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6811(e)(3).

Some types of burglary in Kansas are classified as person offenses, while other types of burglary in Kansas are classified as nonperson offenses. At the time of Walter's offense in November 2015, burglary of a "dwelling" was classified as a person felony in Kansas. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5807(a)(1), (c)(1)(A). In addition, aggravated burglary was classified as a person felony in Kansas. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5807(b), (c)(3).

The Supreme Court creates a new test to determine comparability of crimes.

In March 2018, adopting an identical-or-narrower test, the court redefined the term "comparable." The court analyzed various dictionary definitions of the term "comparable," finding ambiguity in the term's meaning. See State v. Wetrich , 307 Kan. 552, 559-60, 412 P.3d 984 (2018). Then the court looked to the legislative history. It found that using an identical-or-narrower rule to determine comparability would further one of the goals of our Sentencing Guidelines Act of "an even-handed, predictable, and consistent application of the law across jurisdictional lines." 307 Kan. at 561-62, 412 P.3d 984. Our Supreme Court directed that courts must now look at the elements of the statutes:

"For an out-of-state conviction to be comparable to an offense under the Kansas criminal code, within the meaning of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6811(e)(3)... the elements of the out-of-state crime cannot be broader than the elements of the Kansas crime. In other words, the elements of the out-of-state crime must be identical to, or narrower than, the elements of the Kansas crime to which it is being referenced." 307 Kan. 552, Syl. ¶ 3, 412 P.3d 984.

Under this approach, it is important to determine the elements of the out-of-state crime. Criminal statutes are often written in the alternative. Though the Wetrich court rested its decision on the basis of statutory interpretation and not on constitutional grounds, the court borrowed the distinction between elements and means stated in Mathis v. United States , 579 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 2256, 195 L.Ed. 2d 604 (2016). See Wetrich , 307 Kan. at 558, 412 P.3d 984.

The Wetrich court compared the elements of burglary in Kansas with the elements of second-degree burglary in Missouri. The court found two elements that were broader in the Missouri statute: the specific intent required and the nature of the structure involved.

"The Kansas crime to which the Missouri conviction is being compared—burglary of a dwelling—requires that the entry into or remaining within be done with the specific intent to commit a felony, theft, or sexual battery therein. In contrast, the specific intent required for the Missouri second-degree burglary is that the burglar's purpose is to commit any crime. Consequently, the mere existence of the Missouri conviction does not establish the mental state element of the Kansas reference offense because the Missouri mental state element is broader. The purpose for the unlawful entry in Missouri could have been to commit misdemeanor property damage which would not be a burglary in Kansas.
"And, of course, the critical element of the Kansas crime is that the structure involved must be a dwelling, defined as 'a building or portion thereof, a tent, a vehicle or other enclosed space which is used or intended for use as a human habitation, home or residence.' K.S.A. 21-3110(7). In the Missouri crime, in contrast, the element of the charged crime was that Wetrich unlawfully entered or remained within an inhabitable structure, which is broadly defined to include, in addition to a structure where any person lives, such non-dwelling places as a business, government office, school, church, roller-skating rink, or bus station. Again, the breadth of the element in Missouri defeats comparability with the Kansas crime of burglary of a dwelling." 307 Kan. at 563-64, 412 P.3d 984.

The court held that the Kansas offense of burglary of a dwelling was not comparable to Missouri second-degree burglary. The court further held that since Kansas did not have a comparable offense to Missouri's second-degree burglary, the prior conviction had to be classified as a nonperson felony. 307 Kan. at 564, 412 P.3d 984.

We apply the Wetrich test to the facts of this case.

Walter challenges the classification of his 2007 Missouri conviction for second-degree burglary and his 2015 Missouri conviction for first-degree burglary. In the following chart, we compare the elements of the Missouri second-degree burglary statute that Walter violated with the Kansas burglary statute in effect when Walter committed his current crime.

K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5807                              Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.170
                "(a) Burglary is, without authority, entering into     "1. A person commits the crime of burglary in the
                or remaining within any:                               second degree when he knowingly enters
                   (1) Dwelling, with intent to commit a felony,       unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a
                theft or sexually motivated crime therein;             building or inhabitable structure for the purpose of
                   (2) building, manufactured home, mobile             committing a crime therein
                home, tent or other structure which is not a           "2. Burglary in the second degree is a class C
                dwelling, with intent to commit a felony, theft or     felony."
                sexually motivated crime therein; or
                   (3) vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, railroad car or
                other means of conveyance of persons or
                property, with intent to commit a felony, theft or
                sexually motivated crime therein
                ". . . 
                "(c) (1) Burglary as defined in
                   (A) Subsection (a)(1) is a severity level 7
                person felony, except as provided in subsection
                (c)(2);
                   (B) subsection (a)(2) is a severity level 7,
                nonperson felony, except as provided in
                subsection (c)(2);
                   (C) subsection (a)(3) is a severity level 9,
                nonperson felony, except as provided in
                subsection (c)(2); and
                   (2) subsection (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) with the
                intent to commit the theft of a firearm is a severity
                level 5, nonperson felony."
                K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5111 Definitions                Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.010 Definitions
                "`(k) Dwelling' means a building or portion          "`Inhabitable structure' includes a ship, trailer,
                thereof, a tent, a vehicle or other enclosed space   sleeping car, airplane, or other vehicle or
                which is used or intended for use as a human         structure:
                habitation, home or residence."                      "(a) Where any person lives or carries on business
                                                                     or other calling; or
                                                                     "(b) Where people assemble for purposes of
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT