Neal v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 79921,79921 |
| Citation | 25 Kan.App.2d 705,971 P.2d 748 |
| Parties | Juan Jermaine NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
When the State agrees to a defendant's criminal history, even if the criminal history is incorrect, the sentence imposed based on that criminal history is not illegal because it is a proper sentence for the agreed upon grid block. Similarly, the State cannot challenge the severity level of petitioner's crime after so stipulating earlier.
J. Brent Getty, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, for appellant.
Thomas Alongi, assistant county attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, for appellee.
Before RULON, P.J., and PIERRON and MARQUARDT, JJ.
Petitioner Juan Jermaine Neal appeals the district court's order vacating conversion of his indeterminate sentence under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA). Petitioner pled guilty to aggravated sexual battery (K.S.A.21-3518) on July 13, 1993. Later, petitioner filed a motion for sentence conversion based on the KDOC report, which stated petitioner had a crime severity level of 5. The State agreed petitioner's severity level was 5 at the conversion hearing. But, the State later filed a motion to vacate the conversion, asserting petitioner's severity level was either 3 or 4. The district court found petitioner's severity level was 4, making him ineligible for conversion, and vacated the conversion.
When the State agrees to a defendant's criminal history, even if the criminal history is incorrect, the sentence imposed based on that criminal history is not illegal because it is a proper sentence for the agreed upon grid block. Similarly, the State cannot challenge the severity level of petitioner's crime after so stipulating earlier. State v. Tolliver, 22 Kan.App.2d 374, 379-80, 916 P.2d 725 (1996).
"It is true that an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time; however, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504, the law is well settled that one who, by his or her own acts, invites error cannot then complain or take advantage of it on appeal." State v. McBride, 23 Kan.App.2d 302, 304, 930 P.2d 618 (1996). The State argues McBride applies only to arguments raised on appeal, not to arguments raised with the district court. This is irrelevant in this case because under Tolliver, the challenged converted sentence was not illegal because the sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hankins
...a correction of the sentence under K.S.A. 22–3504. State v. Vandervort, 276 Kan. 164, 175–76, 72 P.3d 925 (2003); Neal v. State, 25 Kan.App.2d 705, 706, 971 P.2d 748 (1998), rev. denied 266 Kan. 1109 (1999). Hankins contends that State v. Donaldson, 35 Kan.App.2d 540, 133 P.3d 154 (2006), m......
-
State v. McCarley
...that the State's failure to object to the severity level at sentencing precludes review, relying principally upon Neal v. State, 25 Kan.App.2d 705, 971 P.2d 748 (1998), rev. denied 266 Kan. 1109 (1999). We characterize the State's conduct as more than a failure of objection, however, and co......
-
State v. Schulze
...because it is a proper sentence for the agreed upon grid block.’ " 30 Kan. App. 2d at 667, 46 P.3d 36 (quoting Neal v. State , 25 Kan. App. 2d 705, 705-06, 971 P.2d 748 [1998] ). The Oliver court also found:"This court has repeatedly held that a sentence within the wrong sentencing grid blo......
-
State v. Layton, 87,871
...to his criminal history score at sentencing. Under those circumstances, we consider that he invited the error. See Neal v. State, 25 Kan. App. 2d 705, 706, 971 P.2d 748 (1998), rev. denied 266 Kan. 1109 (1999). Since our standard of review is de novo, we will elect to review defendant's sen......