State v. Schoonover
Decision Date | 28 April 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 90,360.,90,360. |
Citation | 133 P.3d 48 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Scott E. SCHOONOVER, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Patrick H. Dunn, assistant appellate defender, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
Ty Kaufman, county attorney, argued the cause, and Phill Kline, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellee.
Scott E. Schoonover petitions for review of the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm his convictions on seven counts arising from the manufacture and possession of methamphetamine. Several of the issues which Schoonover raises relate to multiplicity, lesser included offenses, and double jeopardy. These arguments require us to examine our jurisprudence regarding multiplicity and determine whether the single act of violence/merger doctrine is the test to be applied to determine whether a defendant has been twice placed in jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. Schoonover also raises issues of multiple acts, search and seizure, and an issue of first impression for this court of whether a defendant can be guilty of possession of a controlled substance without the appropriate drug tax stamp if the defendant did not have actual possession for a sufficient period of time to allow an opportunity to obtain and affix the stamps.
Schoonover does not contest the facts as stated by the Court of Appeals.
State v. Schoonover, No. 90,360, ___ Kan.App. ___, 99 P.3d 1152, 2004 WL 2496765 unpublished opinion filed November 5, 2004.
Schoonover petitioned for review and we granted his petition. We have reframed the issues he raises as: (1) Did the multiple convictions arising from the same course of conduct in obtaining the materials for and engaging in the various steps of manufacturing methamphetamine violate Schoonover's right to be protected from double jeopardy? (2) Are charges of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture and possession of methamphetamine lesser included offenses of manufacture of methamphetamine? (3) Under the facts of the case, where there were multiple items of drug paraphernalia which could have supported the defendant's convictions but the jury was not given a multiple acts instruction, was the defendant's right to a unanimous verdict violated? (4) Did the evidence establish sufficient opportunity to affix a drug tax stamp? (5) Should the court have instructed the jury that the defendant must have had an opportunity to affix the drug tax stamp? (6) Were there material omissions in the affidavit for the search warrant which rendered the search unreasonable? (7) Was the search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate and was it valid? (8) Did the officers exceed the scope of the search warrant by seizing items not specifically listed in the warrant and opening a duffle bag? and (9) Was there cumulative error?
Schoonover did not seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision to vacate his sentence on the count of manufacturing methamphetamine, finding that State v. McAdam, 277 Kan. 136, 83 P.3d 161 (2004), applied. The Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing to a drug severity level 3 felony. That portion of the decision is not subject to our review.
The defendant's first argument is that many of his drug convictions are multiplicitous and therefore in violation of his right not to be held in double jeopardy for an offense. The Court of Appeals panel relied on State v. Groves, 278 Kan. 302, 305-08, 95 P.3d 95 (2004) ( ), in holding that multiplicity claims must be analyzed under both the common-law elements test and the "single act/merger" test. Schoonover, ___ Kan.App. ___, 99 P.3d 1152, 2004 WL 2496765 at * * ___-___. The panel then found that none of the defendant's convictions were multiplicitous because the elements of the offenses were not the same and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Thompson, No. 94,254.
...court accepted this view. In reviewing the district court's determination, the Court of Appeals, applying the controlling authority of Schoonover, disagreed. The panel construed K.S.A. 65-7006(a) to require a single unit of prosecution for multiple items possessed within the statutory list.......
-
State v. Castleberry
...unitary conduct. King, 299 Kan. 372, Syl. ¶ 2, 323 P.3d 1277.” 300 Kan. at ––––, 331 P.3d at 822.Additionally, in State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 507, 133 P.3d 48 (2006), we noted that the factors utilized in determining if there is unitary conduct include:“(1) whether the acts occur at ......
-
State v. Moninger
...v. Rodarte , 190 Ill.App.3d 992, 138 Ill.Dec. 635, 547 N.E.2d 1256, 1261–62 (1989) (listing similar factors); State v. Schoonover , 281 Kan. 453, 133 P.3d 48, 79 (2006) (adopting non-exhaustive, four-factor test to determine whether a defendant's conduct was "unitary," or arising from the s......
-
State v. Scott, No. 83,801.
...intent to allow cumulative punishment. See State v. Walker, 283 Kan. 587, 611, 153 P.3d 1257 (2007); see also State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 490-91, 133 P.3d 48 (2006) (recognizing it may not always be necessary to apply the same-elements test; there may be circumstances where the legis......