State v. Mattox
Decision Date | 10 March 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 111,162,111,162 |
Citation | 390 P.3d 514,305 Kan. 1015 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Joseph Dathian MATTOX, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Catherine A. Zigtema, of Law Office of Kate Zigtema LC, of Lenexa, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Steven J. Obermeier, senior deputy district attorney, argued the cause, and Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.
Joseph Mattox directly appeals his conviction and hard 50 sentence for the first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery of Keighley Alyea in September 2009 in Johnson County. We affirm Mattox's convictions; however, we vacate Mattox's hard 50 sentence and remand for resentencing because the district court, rather than the jury, found the existence of aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013).
We recited the basic facts of Alyea's brutal murder when we affirmed the conviction (following a separate trial) of Mattox's codefendant and cousin Dustin Hilt.
Alyea's body had been found in Cass County, Missouri, approximately 4 miles from Mattox's father's home. An autopsy revealed a total of 20 stab wounds and several larger blunt force trauma injuries to Alyea's head and neck. Either the blunt force trauma causing a skull fracture or any of the stab wounds could have caused her death. Subsequent forensic analysis tied the DNA profiles of Mattox and Alyea to the same bloodstained clothing.
During the investigation, police interviewed Mattox. He initially denied having any knowledge about the killing. But a few days later, Mattox made a full confession, describing the course of events in detail. According to Mattox's confession, while in the QuickTrip, he, Hilt, and Scott Calbeck had hatched a plan to rob Alyea. When Alyea and her killers left QuickTrip, Hilt was driving, Alyea was in the front seat, and Mattox and Calbeck were in the back seats. Soon after, Mattox and Calbeck attacked Alyea—they beat her with their fists, and Mattox dragged Alyea to the back seat, struck her with a pipe, and choked her. When Alyea stopped struggling, Mattox told Hilt to stop the car. They put Alyea in the trunk and kept driving. Mattox proposed disposing the car and Alyea's body in a rural area he knew.
The group pulled over near Harrisonville, Missouri, when they heard Alyea screaming for help in the trunk. They pulled Alyea out of the trunk, and Calbeck beat her again with the pipe. Hilt stabbed Alyea twice in the abdomen with a hunting knife that he took from Mattox's residence. The three men loaded Alyea's limp body back into the trunk and later dumped it in a field.
The group drove back to Overland Park, Kansas, to clean Alyea's car and dispose of the evidence. Mattox removed the battery from Alyea's cell phone and threw it out the car window. The group divided up cleaning tasks—Mattox was responsible to clean the car trunk, and Hilt planned to discard the clothing and the knife. The group abandoned Alyea's car in an apartment parking lot, returned to Mattox's house, and burned Alyea's purse on a grill.
Pretrial, Mattox moved to suppress his confession, but the district court denied the motion. A jury found Mattox guilty of premeditated murder under an aiding and abetting theory, as well as aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. The district court imposed a hard 50 sentence for first-degree murder pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4635 (recodified at K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6620 ) without fact-finding by the jury.
Mattox now appeals his convictions and sentence. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3) ( ).
Mattox first claims that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated when the district court imposed a hard 50 sentence without fact-finding by the jury. He argues his hard 50 sentence is unconstitutional because the sentencing judge found the existence of aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence, in violation of Alleyne , 133 S.Ct. 2151. The State concedes this point. We likewise hold that the imposition of Mattox's hard 50 sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right.
The constitutionality of a sentencing statute is a question of law over which this court exercises unlimited review. Hilt , 299 Kan. at 202, 322 P.3d 367.
"Any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt." Alleyne , 133 S.Ct. at 2155. Therefore, "any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an ‘element’ that must be submitted to the jury." 133 S.Ct. at 2155.
In Hilt the district court likewise imposed a hard 50 sentence without fact-finding by the jury. We found this sentencing scheme ran afoul of Alleyne , stating:
299 Kan. at 203, 322 P.3d 367.
Furthermore, we concluded that Hilt was not one of the rare cases where a hard 50 Alleyne error can be declared harmless. 299 Kan. at 204–05, 322 P.3d 367 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lowery
...of the trial, the jury should not have been concerned with the potential penalty for first-degree murder. Cf. State v. Mattox , 305 Kan. 1015, 1019-20, 390 P.3d 514 (2017) (holding Sixth Amendment right to jury trial violated when district court imposed a hard-50 sentence without fact-findi......
-
State v. Hubbard
...the evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. [Citations omitted.]’ State v. Mattox , 305 Kan. 1015, 1035, 390 P.3d 514 (2017)." State v. Brown , 306 Kan. 1145, 1151, 401 P.3d 611 (2017).DiscussionWe begin our consideration mindful of the facts as ......
-
Khalil-Alsalaami v. State
...language." ’ " State v. Randolph , 297 Kan. 320, 326, 301 P.3d 300 (2013) (voluntariness of confession).See State v. Mattox , 305 Kan. 1015, 1042-43, 390 P.3d 514 (2017) (voluntariness of Miranda waiver). Appellate courts apply a bifurcated standard of review both to a district court's ruli......
-
State v. Brown
...the evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. [Citations omitted.]" State v. Mattox , 305 Kan. 1015, 1035, 390 P.3d 514 (2017)."The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right against self-incrimination, including the rig......