State v. Newton, 116,098
Citation | 442 P.3d 489 |
Decision Date | 07 June 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 116,098,116,098 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Clyde Lacy NEWTON Jr., Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Kai Tate Mann, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
Anna M. Jumpponen, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Ellen Mitchell, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with her on the briefs for appellee.
Clyde Lacy Newton Jr. argues the person felony classification given to his prior California robbery conviction made his sentence in this Kansas criminal case illegal when determining his criminal history score. He urges us to follow State v. Wetrich , 307 Kan. 552, 561-62, 412 P.3d 984 (2018) ( ). The State argues Wetrich is inapplicable, noting the Legislature amended the statute governing motions to correct an illegal sentence to provide that "a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced" does not make a sentence " ‘illegal.’ " K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(3). But this appeal's resolution does not lay at the end of either of those analytical paths.
Instead, we follow State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585, 591, 439 P.3d 307 (2019) ( Murdock II ) ( ). And based on that, Newton's 1977 California robbery conviction was properly classified as a person felony under our caselaw in 2008 when his sentence in the Kansas case became final. See State v. Vandervort , 276 Kan. 164, 179, 72 P.3d 925 (2003) (, )overruled on other grounds by State v. Dickey , 301 Kan. 1018, 350 P.3d 1054 (2015). Accordingly, we affirm.
Newton pleaded guilty to one count of attempted rape, a severity level 3 person felony. At sentencing, the district court determined he had a criminal history score of B, in part due to a 1977 California robbery conviction, which the Kansas court classified as a person felony. The court granted Newton's motion for durational departure and sentenced him in 2008 to 168 months in prison and lifetime postrelease supervision. Newton did not appeal his sentence.
In 2014, Newton filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argued the district court incorrectly calculated his criminal history score by classifying some pre-1993 convictions as person felonies contrary to State v. Murdock , 299 Kan. 312, 323 P.3d 846 (2014) ( Murdock I ), overruled by State v. Keel , 302 Kan. 560, 357 P.3d 251 (2015). The court denied the motion, concluding Murdock I did not apply retroactively. Newton appealed.
Before Newton filed his opening appellate brief, Keel overruled Murdock I . Adapting, he claimed his sentence was illegal for two other reasons: (1) his 1977 California robbery conviction could not be classified as a person felony without engaging in improper fact-finding in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed. 2d 435 (2000) ; and (2) the district court improperly imposed mandatory lifetime postrelease supervision. The panel rejected both arguments. State v. Newton , No. 116098, 2017 WL 3113025 (Kan. App. 2017) (unpublished opinion).
As to Newton's criminal history score, applying Vandervort the panel held the district court properly scored his California conviction as a person felony. In doing so, it noted Kansas law classifies robbery as a person offense, but that California's robbery statute is broader than the Kansas crime because it includes threats to a person or property. Nevertheless, the panel held the crimes were similar enough in the nature and type of criminal conduct covered so the district court did not err. 2017 WL 3113025, at *2. The panel further concluded the classification did not violate Apprendi and then rejected his second issue regarding postrelease supervision. 2017 WL 3113025, at *2-3.
Newton petitioned for review. While review was pending, we decided State v. Wetrich , 307 Kan. 552, 562, 412 P.3d 984 (2018), which held the elements of the out-of-state crime cannot be broader than the elements of the Kansas crime to be comparable to an offense under the Kansas criminal code within the meaning of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6811(e)(3). We granted review of Newton's criminal history challenge but denied review of his postrelease supervision argument.
In our review order, we directed the parties to respond to the Wetrich development, which they did. Newton agrees Wetrich controls, but the State disagrees. It notes in 2017 the Legislature amended the statute authorizing corrections of illegal sentences to provide that "a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced" does not render that sentence illegal. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(3) ; L. 2017, ch. 62, § 9. The State characterizes Wetrich as a change in the law and maintains the 2017 amendment operates retroactively to Newton's 2014 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Newton responds Wetrich did not change the law, and even if it did, the statutory revision should not apply retroactively because that would create several constitutional issues, such as violating the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
Jurisdiction is proper. See K.S.A. 20-3018(b) ( ); K.S.A. 60-2101(b) ( ).
Under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq., a prior out-of-state conviction must be classified as either a "person" or "nonperson" crime. K.S.A. 21-4711(e) provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Clark
...the purposes of determining whether a defendant's sentence was illegal under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504. See also State v. Newton , 309 Kan. 1070, 1073-74, 442 P.3d 489 (2019) (same).Based on these legal developments, the State claims Clark's 2019 sentence is illegal. Relying on Tauer and Da......
-
State v. Smith, No. 118,042
..., 309 Kan. 585, 439 P.3d 307 (2019) [ (Murdock II ) ], State v. Weber , 309 Kan. 1203, 442 P.3d 1044 (2019), and State v. Newton , 309 Kan. 1070, 442 P.3d 489 (2019)." State v. Smith , No. 118,042, 2019 WL 7763406 (order dated December 27, 2019). For the reasons stated in this opinion, we v......
-
State v. Obregon
...an illegal sentence is stuck with the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced." See also State v. Newton , 309 Kan. ––––, 442 P.3d 489, 2019 WL 2399484, at *3 (No. 116,098, filed June 7, 2019) (holding defendant sentenced before Wetrich could not rely on Wetrich in motion to c......
-
State v. Gales
......See State v. Newton , 309 Kan. 1070, 1073, 442 P.3d 489 (2019) (implying that Wetrich was a change in the law). So, on June 11, 2019, this court ordered the parties ......