State v. Flores, No. 80,862.

Citation268 Kan. 657,999 P.2d 919
Decision Date10 March 2000
Docket NumberNo. 80,862.
PartiesSTATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. RAFAEL FLORES, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas

268 Kan. 657
999 P.2d 919


No. 80,862.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed March 10, 2000.

Mary Curtis, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, were on the brief for appellant.

William T. Stetzer, assistant county attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by


This is a direct appeal by Rafael Flores of the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences for Flores' convictions of first-degree felony murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter. Based on our interpretation of K.S.A. 21-4721, we conclude that we have no jurisdiction to review Flores' nondeparture sentences despite his claims of abuse of discretion, partiality, prejudice, or corrupt motive.

Factual and procedural background

The crimes involved in this appeal were committed on October 5, 1996, when Flores, then a 14-year-old minor, became embroiled in a verbal confrontation between two groups of young men and fired several shots in the direction of the other group, wounding John Moses and killing Justin Mercado. Flores was certified to be tried as an adult and subsequently pled guilty to first-degree felony

268 Kan. 658
murder, K.S.A. 21-3401(b), an off-grid person felony, and attempted voluntary manslaughter, K.S.A. 21-3301 and K.S.A. 21-3403(b), a severity level 5 person felony

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the county attorney requested concurrent sentences, but the trial court entered consecutive sentences of life imprisonment on the first-degree felony murder conviction and 34 months' imprisonment on the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction based on the aggravated term in the presumptive 5-I grid box for the latter crime.

Flores appeals contending "[t]he trial court abused its discretion by entering consecutive sentences on the charges of felony murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter, in violation of the plea agreement, because the sentences were a result of partiality, prejudice, or corrupt motive."

We dismiss Flores' appeal for the reasons hereafter stated.


K.S.A. 22-3602(e) provides that appeals from sentences imposed under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq., for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1993, are only allowed as provided in K.S.A. 21-4721. State v. Ware, 262 Kan. 180, Syl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 938 P.2d 197 (1997).

K.S.A. 21-4721(a) states: "A departure sentence is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • State v. Schad, 99,445.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • April 24, 2009
    ...stated: "It is true that we have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a presumptive sentence, K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(1); State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657, 659, 999 P.2d 919 (2000), but the issue raised relates to a 206 P.3d 29 constitutional violation in determining the terms and conditions o......
  • State v. Dull
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • June 5, 2015
    ...jurisdiction to entertain a criminal defendant's direct appeal of a presumptive sentence. See K.S.A. 21–4721(c)(1) ; State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657, 659–60, 999 P.2d 919 (2000) (imposition of consecutive sentences does not alter presumptive character of sentences imposed). On petition for re......
  • State v. Pham, 90,848.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • June 16, 2006
    ...him in this way. The State responds that Pham's sentence did not depart from the presumptive sentences and, under State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657, 999 P.2d 919 (2000), Pham does not raise jurisdictional grounds sufficient for We agree with the State. There is no departure from the presumptive......
  • State v. Huerta
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • March 18, 2011
    ...sentences. A 1995 statutory amendment altered the language of K.S.A. 21–4721(e)(1). See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21–4721(e)(1); State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657, 658, 999 P.2d 919 (2000). Before the amendment, Kansas appellate courts also reviewed presumptive sentences for partiality, prejudice, oppr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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