State v. Buell, No. 113,881
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
| Writing for the Court | The opinion of the court was delivered by Johnson, J. |
| Citation | 307 Kan. 604,412 P.3d 1004 |
| Docket Number | No. 113,881 |
| Decision Date | 09 March 2018 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Derrick BUELL, Appellant. |
307 Kan. 604
412 P.3d 1004
STATE of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Derrick BUELL, Appellant.
No. 113,881
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 9, 2018.
Patrick H. Dunn, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
Jodi Litfin, deputy district attorney, argued the cause, and Kyle Edelman, assistant district attorney, Chadwick J. Taylor, former district attorney, Michael F. Kagay, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with her on the briefs for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by Johnson, J.:
Derrick Buell seeks review of the Court of Appeals' determination that the district court correctly classified two prior Florida burglary juvenile adjudications as person felonies when calculating Buell's criminal history score under the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA). State v. Buell , 52 Kan. App. 2d 818, 377 P.3d 1174 (2016). Buell argues, inter alia , that the Florida crimes were not comparable to the person felony of burglary of a dwelling in the current Kansas criminal code because the elements of the out-of-state adjudications were broader than the elements of the Kansas reference offense. We agree. The Court of Appeals decision is reversed, Buell's sentence is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the district court to resentence Buell with a criminal history score that characterizes the Florida juvenile adjudications as nonperson felonies.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
As a result of events taking place on January 20, 2012, Buell pleaded guilty to robbery and attempted kidnapping in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas. The presentence investigation (PSI) report calculated Buell's criminal history score as A, based in part on two prior juvenile adjudications in Florida. One adjudication was identified as a burglary of a dwelling and the other was referred to as burglary of a dwelling while armed.
At sentencing, Buell objected to his criminal history score. Specifically, he argued that the burglary of a dwelling while armed adjudication should not have been classified as a person felony because Kansas has no comparable offense. The district court looked at the Florida charging document and case disposition before overruling Buell's objection. Thereupon, the district court sentenced Buell to a total of 122 months in prison, based upon a criminal history score of A.
Buell appealed his sentence. But a panel of the Court of
Appeals affirmed Buell's criminal history and sentence. In its published opinion, the panel declared that it was irrelevant that the intent element of the Florida offenses differs from the specific intent required for the Kansas offense. Rather, the panel divined that burglary offenses are comparable for purposes of the person/nonperson classification if they both contain an element that the burgled structure is a dwelling. 52 Kan. App. 2d at 831-32, 377 P.3d 1174.
We granted Buell's petition seeking review of the Court of Appeals' determination that the prior Florida juvenile adjudications should be classified as person offenses.
CLASSIFICATION OF FLORIDA BURGLARY ADJUDICATIONS UNDER KSGA
Buell's current crimes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carter, No. 116,223
...22-4902(e)(2). To the extent these arguments require us to engage in statutory interpretation, de novo review applies. State v. Buell , 307 Kan. 604, 606, 412 P.3d 1004 (2018). Insofar as Carter argues that the district judge's finding was unsupported, we examine the record to determine whe......
-
State v. Obregon, No. 117,422
...than the Kansas statute's "intent to commit a felony, theft, or sexual battery therein." 307 Kan. at 563, 412 P.3d 984.In State v. Buell , 307 Kan. 604, 608, 412 P.3d 1004 (2018), the Kansas burglary-of-a-dwelling offense was determined not to be comparable to a Florida burglary because it ......
-
State v. Broxton, No. 114,675
...the Florida burglary statute does not create a comparable offense and therefore it must be scored as a nonperson felony. State v. Buell , 307 Kan. 604, 608, 412 P.3d 1004 (2018) (Comparing K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5807 to Fla. Stat. § 810.02 [2002] and concluding that "[m]any alternative means ......
-
State v. Tracy, No. 113,763
...799, 377 P.3d 1162 (2016), rev'd 307 Kan. 599, 412 P.3d 965 (2018), and State v. Buell , 52 Kan. App. 2d 818, 377 P.3d 1174 (2016), rev'd 307 Kan. 604, 412 P.3d 1004 (2018). Tracy , 2016 WL 3960185, at *11.Both the State and Tracy sought review from this court. We denied review of the State......
-
State v. Carter, 116,223
...22-4902(e)(2). To the extent these arguments require us to engage in statutory interpretation, de novo review applies. State v. Buell , 307 Kan. 604, 606, 412 P.3d 1004 (2018). Insofar as Carter argues that the district judge's finding was unsupported, we examine the record to determine whe......
-
State v. Obregon, 117,422
...than the Kansas statute's "intent to commit a felony, theft, or sexual battery therein." 307 Kan. at 563, 412 P.3d 984.In State v. Buell , 307 Kan. 604, 608, 412 P.3d 1004 (2018), the Kansas burglary-of-a-dwelling offense was determined not to be comparable to a Florida burglary because it ......
-
State v. Broxton, 114,675
...the Florida burglary statute does not create a comparable offense and therefore it must be scored as a nonperson felony. State v. Buell , 307 Kan. 604, 608, 412 P.3d 1004 (2018) (Comparing K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5807 to Fla. Stat. § 810.02 [2002] and concluding that "[m]any alternative means ......
-
State v. Tracy, 113,763
...799, 377 P.3d 1162 (2016), rev'd 307 Kan. 599, 412 P.3d 965 (2018), and State v. Buell , 52 Kan. App. 2d 818, 377 P.3d 1174 (2016), rev'd 307 Kan. 604, 412 P.3d 1004 (2018). Tracy , 2016 WL 3960185, at *11.Both the State and Tracy sought review from this court. We denied review of the State......