State v. Johnson, 117,788

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
• Citation: 441 P.3d 1036
• Docket Number: No. 117,788,117,788
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Cameron Lee JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 May 2019

441 P.3d 1036

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Cameron Lee JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. 117,788

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed May 31, 2019.

Kai Tate Mann, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Natalie Chalmers, assistant solicitor general, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, was with her on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Beier, J.:

This case comes to us on direct appeal from Cameron Lee Johnson's no contest plea to felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Johnson to life without parole for at least 25 years and 272 months for aggravated kidnapping, to run consecutive to the life sentence. Johnson raises three issues on direct appeal, concerning the imposition of consecutive sentences, restitution, and the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision following a hard-25 life sentence. We also note another

441 P.3d 1038

ambiguity in Johnson's sentence as pronounced.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Johnson pleaded no contest to felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm. At his plea hearing, both the district court and county attorney referenced Johnson's numerous other criminal cases. The district court swore Johnson in before confirming with Johnson that he had read and understood each and every part of the acknowledgement of rights and entry of plea that he had signed. Johnson requested and was given additional time to discuss the acknowledgment with his mother and his attorney. The district court then confirmed Johnson understood the court was not bound by the plea agreement. The court took Johnson's no contest pleas for each of the four offenses charged.

The district court then said, "[T]he Court is aware of the facts of the case based on the Probable Cause Affidavit, but just to be safe, for the record, would you provide a factual basis for the Court, please." The State did so, reciting facts including that the victim was kidnapped when she was taken by force or fear from the vehicle she had been in to a vacant lot where she was shot numerous times. The State also referenced Johnson's confession, which the district court was familiar with from a codefendant's case. None of these statements drew any objection from Johnson's counsel.

The court responded: "Based on the information provided by Mr. Johnson ... and [the State ,] the Court will find that there's a factual basis for the plea and find that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered into." (Emphasis added.) Johnson's counsel again did not object.

At sentencing, the district court handed down a Hard 25 life sentence for felony murder; the judge made inconsistent references to whether the sentence included the possibility of parole after 25 years or required lifetime postrelease supervision.

"For the offense of first-degree murder, felony murder, an off-grid offense, the Court is sentencing you to life in prison. Lifetime post-release. That is the requirement, correct, Mr. Grillot?

"Mr. Grillot: Yes, Your Honor.

"The Court: Lifetime post-release. You'll be eligible for parole after 25 years."

Johnson also received 272 months for aggravated kidnapping, to be served consecutively to the Hard 25; 12 months on aggravated assault, to be served concurrently with the Hard 25 and 272 months; and 8 months on criminal possession, to be served concurrently to the aggravated assault sentence but consecutively to the Hard 25 and 272 months on the other counts. The district court rejected Johnson's request, which the State joined, to run all sentences concurrent, explaining:

"This was a crime of extreme violence that the victim was subject to. I heard your statement that you gave the police at the preliminary hearing. It is clear to the Court that the final moments of this young lady's life were very cold, and you showed no mercy. As a consequence, the Court can show no mercy to you.

"So the first-degree murder count and the aggravated kidnapping count will run consecutive to one another and not concurrent."

Johnson's counsel again did not object to or otherwise take issue with the district court's statements.

The judge also addressed restitution at sentencing: "Restitution will be ordered. If they can't agree on the amount, you'll have to pay that." The court later reiterated, "[A]ny restitution is not waived."

The journal entry of judgment reflected that the court imposed lifetime postrelease supervision. It also indicated restitution was "TBD" or "to be determined" at a later time. A subsequent nunc pro tunc still listed restitution as "TBD" and purported to change the criminal possession sentence to run concurrent to the sentences on the three other counts.

No restitution amount was ever set by the district court.

We ordered the parties to show cause on whether this court has jurisdiction, because the open issue on restitution raised a preliminary question about whether the district

441 P.3d 1039

court had entered a final judgment. We noted the parties' responses and concluded that we have jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS

Lack of Preservation of Consecutive Sentencing Issue

Litigants generally are precluded from raising an issue on appeal when they failed to raise the issue in the district court. We have recognized exceptions that allow a party to raise an issue, including a constitutional issue, for the first time on appeal: (1) the newly asserted theory involves "only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and the issue is finally determinative of the case"; (2) "resolution of the question is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent denial of fundamental rights"; and (3)...