State v. Lamone, 115,451
Decision Date | 28 September 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 115,451,115,451 |
Citation | 427 P.3d 47 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Stephanie R. LAMONE, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
C. Ryan Gering, of Hulnick, Stang, Gering & Leavitt, P.A., of Wichita, was on the brief for appellant.
Lance J. Gillett, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
This case involves defendant Stephanie R. Lamone's sentence for driving under the influence (DUI) based on two prior convictions for DUI.
The two DUI convictions were Wichita Municipal Court convictions. Lamone argues that the Wichita DUIs cannot be used to enhance her current state DUI sentence, because the Wichita ordinance prohibits a broader range of conduct than the Kansas statute. This court has already addressed and resolved this issue. As detailed in our decision in State v. Gensler , 308 Kan. 674, 423 P.3d 488 (2018), we hold that a conviction based on the ordinance cannot be used to enhance a sentence for a DUI conviction under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 8-1567. See also State v. Fisher , 308 Kan. 715, 423 P.3d 528 (2018) ; State v. Mears , 308 Kan. 719, 423 P.3d 467 (2018). We vacate Lamone's sentence and remand this case to the district court for resentencing.
On July 3, 2014, the State charged Lamone with two alternative counts of felony driving under the influence, which occurred on February 12, 2014. Lamone had two prior convictions for driving while under the influence under Wichita's Municipal Code, one on September 2, 2010, and the second on December 15, 2011.
The Wichita ordinance governing DUIs at the time of those convictions read in part:
Lamone moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the Wichita DUIs could not be used as predicates to establish felony DUI under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 8-1567.
After hearing argument on the motion, the district court judge reviewed the citation and the disposition sheet from the previous two Wichita DUIs. The documents alleged that Lamone was driving a Toyota Camry while under the influence of alcohol in both prior convictions. Based on these documents, the district judge denied Lamone's motion to dismiss.
The case proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts, including:
At the bench trial, the judge noted Lamone's continuing objection to the use of the Wichita DUIs and found Lamone guilty "based on review of the stipulation of facts."
Before sentencing, Lamone objected to including the Wichita DUIs in her criminal history score. The district judge overruled the objection, incorporating by reference his prior rulings on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Mejia
...followed Gensler , and our court has done the same. See, e.g., Schrader , 308 Kan. at 708, 423 P.3d 523 ; State v. Lamone , 308 Kan. 1101, 1103-04, 427 P.3d 47 (2018) ; State v. Ramos , No. 118,080, 2018 WL 4263371, at *2 (Kan. App. 2018) (unpublished opinion). Prior to Gensler other panels......
- In re Mason