State v. Johnson

Decision Date30 April 2021
Docket NumberNo. 121,951,121,951
Citation313 Kan. 339,486 P.3d 544
CourtKansas Supreme Court
Parties STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Ronald JOHNSON, Appellant.

313 Kan. 339
486 P.3d 544

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Ronald JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. 121,951

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed April 30, 2021.


Wendie C. Miller, of Wichita, was on the briefs for appellant.

Daniel G. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the briefs for appellee.

Per Curiam:

486 P.3d 545
313 Kan. 339

Ronald Johnson attacks the portion of his life sentence for first-degree premeditated murder that sets a minimum sentence of 50 years. Johnson argues he is entitled to resentencing under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628(c), formerly K.S.A. 21-4639, because the sentencing judge engaged in judicial fact-finding to determine that aggravating factors justified a minimum sentence of 50 years instead of the 25-year minimum that would otherwise apply.

K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628(c) does not create an avenue or independent means by which a convicted person can challenge his or her underlying sentence. We thus affirm the district court's denial of Johnson's request for relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A jury convicted Johnson of first-degree premeditated murder for a murder committed in 2001. The district court judge, without jury findings, imposed a hard 50 life sentence after concluding any

313 Kan. 340

mitigating circumstances did not outweigh aggravating circumstances. Johnson appealed and challenged his sentence as unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed.2d 435 (2000). This court rejected his Apprendi argument and affirmed Johnson's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. State v. Johnson , 284 Kan. 18, 22-23, 159 P.3d 161 (2007).

Johnson later filed several motions for habeas relief under K.S.A. 60-1507. None led to any relief. See Johnson v. State , No. 117,323, 2017 WL 3824255 (Kan. App. 2017) (unpublished opinion); Johnson v. State , No. 108,309, 2013 WL 5303530 (Kan. App. 2013) (unpublished opinion); Johnson v. State , No. 102,952, 2011 WL 867686 (Kan. App. 2011) (unpublished opinion). In the most recent of these, Johnson unsuccessfully argued for retroactive application of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013). The Court of Appeals panel rejected his appeal based on this court's decision in Kirtdoll v. State , 306 Kan. 335, 341, 393 P.3d 1053 (2017) ( Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to cases already final and its prospective-only change in the law cannot provide the exceptional circumstances that would justify a successive 60-1507 motion or the manifest injustice necessary to excuse the untimeliness of a 60-1507 motion). See Johnson , 2017 WL 3824255, at *1.

In 2018, Johnson filed a motion "[i]nvoking sentence modification pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4639 renumbered K.S.A. 21-6628(c) (2011)." Johnson argued the rule announced in Alleyne rendered unconstitutional the sentencing statutes under which he was sentenced so that he must be resentenced under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628(c). The district court denied relief and this appeal followed.

While this appeal was pending, this court decided State v. Coleman , 312 Kan. 114, 472 P.3d 85 (2020). There, we held that K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628(c) does not create a new avenue or independent means by which a convicted person can challenge his or her underlying sentence. 312 Kan. at 121-24, 472 P.3d 85. Both parties filed Rule 6.09 letters addressing Coleman . (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 40.) We then requested supplemental briefing.

486 P.3d 546
313 Kan. 341

This court has jurisdiction under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3) (allowing appeal of life sentence to Supreme Court, except for sentence imposed under K.S.A. 21-4643 or K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6627 ).

ANALYSIS

Standard of Review

This case involves issues of statutory interpretation and constitutional claims. Both are questions of law subject to de novo or unlimited review. Coleman , 312 Kan. at 117, 472 P.3d 85.

History of Caselaw on Judicial Fact-finding

Johnson raises the same complaint as had Curtis L. Coleman Jr.: A judge, not a jury, found aggravating factors that served as the basis for increasing the minimum term of their life sentences from 25 years to either 40 years in Coleman's case or 50 years in Johnson's. Like Coleman, Johnson contends his sentence should be vacated because the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a jury determine these aggravating factors. See Coleman , 312 Kan. at 117-18, 472 P.3d 85 ; Johnson , 284 Kan. at 22-23, 159 P.3d 161.

When a judge sentenced Johnson, Kansas law allowed judicial fact-finding. But, about seven years after Johnson's direct appeal ended, this court held it was unconstitutional for a judge to increase the minimum sentence a defendant must serve based on findings made by the judge, not a jury. See State v. Soto , 299 Kan. 102, 122-24, 322 P.3d 334 (2014) (citing Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 [2013] ).

This court in Coleman detailed this history. 312 Kan. at 118-19, 472 P.3d 85. We need not discuss all the detail here; a short history provides context for our holding that, like Coleman, Johnson has no right to relief.

Coleman began with a discussion of Apprendi , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348. In Apprendi , the United States Supreme Court held that any fact other than the existence of a prior conviction "that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. That holding applied explicitly only to the determination of statutory maximum sentences and, that same

313 Kan. 342

year, this court declined to extend the Apprendi rule to findings made by a district court judge before imposing a mandatory minimum —the complaint Johnson makes. See State v. Conley , 270 Kan. 18, 11 P.3d 1147 (2000) (relying on McMillan v. Pennsylvania , 477 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 2411, 91 L. Ed. 2d 67 [1986] ).

Two years later, the United States Supreme Court walked the line between Apprendi and McMillan by characterizing a judge's finding that a defendant possessed, brandished, or discharged a firearm during the commission of an offense as a judicial sentencing factor rather than an element of the crime. Harris v. United States , 536 U.S. 545, 556, 122 S. Ct. 2406, 153 L. Ed. 2d 524 (2002). And that same year, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional Arizona's capital sentencing statutes that allowed a judge to find and balance mitigating circumstances in determining whether to impose a death sentence. Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S. Ct. 2428, 153 L. Ed. 2d 556 (2002).

Ten years later, the United States Supreme Court overruled Harris in Alleyne . The Court found "no basis in principle or logic to distinguish facts that raise the maximum from those that increase the minimum." Alleyne , 570 U.S. at 116, 133 S.Ct. 2151. Thus, the Court held that any fact that increases the minimum sentence must "be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt." 570 U.S. at 116, 133 S.Ct. 2151.

This court extended Alleyne to Kansas' hard 50 sentencing statutes (hard 40 for crimes committed before July 1, 1999) in Soto , 299 Kan. at 122-24, 322 P.3d 334. We later held the rule of law declared in Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to invalidate a sentence that was final before the date of the Alleyne decision. Kirtdoll , 306 Kan. 335, Syl. ¶ 1, 393 P.3d 1053 ; see Johnson , 2017 WL 3824255, at *1.

486 P.3d 547

Modification of Johnson's Sentence

While that history explains the legal basis for Johnson's complaint, it does not address the pivotal question in his appeal: Can he obtain relief from his sentence given that it was final several years before our decision in Soto and the United State Supreme Court's decision in Alleyne ? The finality of his sentence means no court has jurisdiction to modify the sentence unless there is a jurisdictional

313 Kan. 343

basis for presenting the argument to the court. Coleman , 312 Kan. at 119-20, 472 P.3d 85 (quoting State v. Trotter , 296 Kan. 898, 905, 295 P.3d 1039 [2013] ). Requests for a sentence modification must be "dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless there is statutory language authorizing the specific requested relief." 312 Kan. at 120, 472 P.3d 85 (citing State v. Anthony , 274 Kan. 998, 1002, 58 P.3d 742 [2002] ).

Given that, the Coleman decision explored the potential ways a court could have jurisdiction to hear the claim of someone like Johnson or Coleman who seeks relief from the hard 40 or 50 minimum term of his or her life sentence. Johnson filed a motion "[i]nvoking sentence modification pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4639 renumbered K.S.A. 21-6628(c) (2011)." In Coleman , we considered and rejected...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Drennan v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • March 25, 2022
    ...disregards the plain language of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628(c). See Trotter , 313 Kan. at 370-71, 485 P.3d 649 ; State v. Johnson , 313 Kan. 339, 344-45, 486 P.3d 544 (2021) ; Appleby , 313 Kan. at 357-58, 485 P.3d 1148 ; State v. Hill , 313 Kan. 1010, 1017, 492 P.3d 1190 (2021). Accordingly......
  • State v. Bedford
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 14, 2022
    ...State v. Hill, 313 Kan. 1010, 1016-17, 492 P.3d 1190 (2021); Trotter, 313 Kan. at 370-71; Appleby, 313 Kan. at 357-58; State v. Johnson, 313 Kan. 339, 345, 486 P.3d 544 (2021). Finally-in an attempt to avoid our Kirtdoll v. State, 306 Kan. 335, 341, 393 P.3d 1053 (2017), holding that Alleyn......
  • Johnson v. Wyandotte Cnty. Dist. Court
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • January 23, 2023
    ...Kan. 339, 486 P.3d 544, 545 (Kan. Sup. Ct. April 30, 2021). The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Id. “Johnson later filed several motions for habeas relief under K.S.A. 60-1507 . . . [n]one led to any relief.” Id. (citations omitted). Johnson has p......

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