Title: State v. Woodard

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 105,132 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
PHILIP A. WOODARD, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
 
1. 
 
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits inflicting cruel 
and unusual punishment. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 
extends the protections of the Eighth Amendment to prisoners in state custody. 
 
2. 
 
An Eighth Amendment challenge to a term-of-years sentence as disproportionate 
and therefore cruel and unusual falls into one of two general classifications. The first 
classification involves challenges that argue the term of years is grossly disproportionate 
given all the circumstances in a particular case. The second classification encompasses 
cases in which the court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical 
restrictions. 
 
3. 
 
When conducting an Eighth Amendment analysis to determine whether a term-of-
years sentence is grossly disproportionate for a particular defendant's crime, a court 
2 
 
 
 
begins by comparing the gravity of the offense and the severity of the sentence. This 
analysis may consider a particular offender's mental state and motive in committing the 
crime, the actual harm caused to the victim or to society by the offender's conduct, any 
prior criminal history, and a particular offender's propensity for violence. 
 
4. 
 
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require strict 
proportionality between a crime and a sentence; rather, it forbids only an extreme 
sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the crime.  
 
5. 
 
In State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 367, 574 P.2d 950 (1978), this court has set 
out a three-part test to govern analysis of challenges to alleged cruel or unusual 
punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights:  (1) The nature of the 
offense and the character of the offender should be examined with particular regard to the 
degree of danger present to society; relevant to this inquiry are the facts of the crime, the 
violent or nonviolent nature of the offense, the extent of culpability for the injury 
resulting, and the penological purposes of the prescribed punishment; (2) A comparison 
of the punishment with punishments imposed in this jurisdiction for more serious 
offenses, and if among them are found more serious crimes punished less severely than 
the offense in question the challenged penalty is to that extent suspect; and (3) A 
comparison of the penalty with punishments in other jurisdictions for the same offense. 
 
6. 
 
The legislative intent underlying Jessica's Law is to protect children by removing 
perpetrators of sexual crimes against children from society. 
 
3 
 
 
 
7. 
The fact that the penalty for certain categories of homicide may be less severe than 
the penalties for other, nonhomicide crimes does not automatically render the penalties 
for the nonhomicide crimes unconstitutional. There is no strict linear order of criminal 
activity that ranks all homicides as the most serious crimes and all nonhomicide crimes as 
less serious, with the corresponding penalties necessarily ranking in diminishing 
durations of imprisonment. 
 
8. 
When compared with the punishments imposed for other offenses in Kansas, the 
penalty under K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(1)(C) is not disproportionately harsh. 
 
9. 
When compared with the penalties imposed for similar offenses in other 
jurisdictions, the penalty under K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(1)(C) is not disproportionately harsh.  
 
10. 
The standard for reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to depart under 
K.S.A. 21-4643(d) is abuse of discretion. On the record in this appeal, the district judge 
did not abuse his discretion by denying the defendant a departure from the hard 25 life 
sentence applicable under Jessica's Law. 
 
 
Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; ERNEST L. JOHNSON, judge. Opinion filed July 13, 2012. 
Affirmed. 
 
David Scott Whinery, of Whinery Law Office, of Liberty, Missouri, argued the cause and was on 
the brief for appellant.  
 
4 
 
 
 
Casey L. Meyer, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Jerome A. Gorman, district 
attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee. 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
ROSEN, J.:  Philip A. Woodard appeals from the imposition of three life sentences 
with a mandatory minimum term of 25 years following his plea of guilty to three counts 
of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. He contends that the sentences constitute 
cruel and unusual punishment under the United States Constitution and Kansas 
Constitution. We disagree and affirm the sentences. 
 
The State filed an amended information alleging in three counts that Woodard 
committed aggravated indecent liberties with his twin stepchildren over a period of 5 
years, from 2004 to 2009. The aggravated indecent liberties charges consisted of lewd 
fondling or touching. The children were approximately 7 years old and Woodard was 
approximately 38 years old when the charged criminal activity began.  
 
On March 25, 2010, Woodard tendered a plea of guilty to all three counts. The 
State agreed not to file additional charges against Woodard, and both sides reserved the 
right to file sentencing motions. The district court accepted the plea agreement. 
 
Woodard filed a motion seeking a departure from the hard 25 life sentence 
applicable to his crimes under Jessica's Law, K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(1)(C). In his motion, he 
argued that the nonviolent, noncoercive, and noninvasive nature of the crimes mitigated 
in favor of a downward departure and that a life sentence violated Kansas and United 
States constitutional prohibitions on cruel and/or unusual punishment under the facts of 
his crimes. The State filed an extensive response, arguing that Woodard's criminal 
5 
 
 
 
activity was extensive, lasted over a long period of time, and involved particularly 
vulnerable victims.  
 
 
Following a hearing on the motion, the district court ruled the sentences were not 
unconstitutional, denied the motion for downward departure, and sentenced Woodard to 
three concurrent hard 25 life terms. He now appeals both the constitutional and departure 
issues. 
 
Woodard now appeals both the constitutional and departure issues. Among other 
things, he contends that the hard 25 life sentence is cruel and/or unusual both as it applies 
to him and as a sentencing classification. 
 
A. Does Woodard's Sentence Constitute Cruel or Unusual Punishment? 
 
In determining whether a sentence is cruel or unusual, a district court must make 
both legal and factual inquiries. See, e.g., State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157, 160-
61, 194 P.3d 1195 (2008). These inquiries invoke a bifurcated standard of review:  
without reweighing the evidence, the appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of 
the district court's findings under a substantial competent evidence standard, and the 
district court's ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts is reviewed de novo. 
State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76, 80, 201 P.3d 673 (2009); State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 
70, 159 P.3d 985 (2007).  
 
A statute is presumed constitutional and all doubts must be resolved in favor of its 
validity. If there is any reasonable way to construe a statute as constitutionally valid, the 
court has the authority and the duty to do so. State v. Laturner, 289 Kan. 727, 735, 218 
P.3d 23 (2009); see also State ex rel. Six v. Kansas Lottery, 286 Kan. 557, 562, 186 P.3d 
6 
 
 
 
183 (2008) ("It is not the duty of this court to criticize the legislature or to substitute its 
view on economic or social policy; it is the duty of this court to safeguard the 
constitution."). 
 
We begin our analysis with Woodard's federal constitutional challenge.  
 
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits inflicting cruel 
and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment has been extended to the states under 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Robinson v. California, 
370 U.S. 660, 667, 82 S. Ct. 1417, 8 L. Ed. 2d 758 (1962). 
 
An Eighth Amendment challenge to a term-of-years sentence as disproportionate 
and therefore cruel and unusual falls into one of two general classifications. The first 
classification involves challenges that argue the term of years is grossly disproportionate 
given all the circumstances in a particular case. The second classification encompasses 
cases in which the court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical 
restrictions. When conducting an Eighth Amendment analysis to determine whether a 
term-of-years sentence is grossly disproportionate for a particular defendant's crime, a 
court begins by comparing the gravity of the offense and the severity of the sentence. 
This analysis may consider a particular offender's mental state and motive in committing 
the crime, the actual harm caused to the victim or to society by the offender's conduct, 
any prior criminal history, and a particular offender's propensity for violence. In the rare 
case in which this threshold comparison leads to an inference of gross disproportionality, 
the court should then compare the defendant's sentence with the sentences received by 
other offenders in the same jurisdiction and with the sentences imposed for the same 
crime in other jurisdictions. If this comparative analysis validates an initial judgment that 
7 
 
 
 
the sentence is grossly disproportionate, the sentence is cruel and unusual. State v. 
Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, Syl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 235 P.3d 1203 (2010). 
 
The first classification is case-specific and "'involves challenges that argue the 
term of years is grossly disproportionate given all the circumstances in a particular case. 
The second classification comprises cases in which the court implements the 
proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions.'" State v. Berriozabal, 291 
Kan. 568, 592, 243 P.3d 352 (2010) (quoting Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, Syl. ¶ 4). 
 
Under the first classification, which is a threshold determination, this court is 
asked to determine whether Woodard's sentence is grossly disproportionate given the 
circumstances of his case.  
 
The United States Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution does not require strict proportionality between a crime and a 
sentence; rather, it forbids only an extreme sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the 
crime. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20-21, 123 S. Ct. 1179, 155 L. Ed. 2d 108 
(2003). 
 
A number of factors persuaded the district court and persuade us that Woodard's 
sentences are not grossly disproportionate given the circumstances of the crimes. The 
abuse took place over a period of 5 years. Woodard enjoyed a special position of trust as 
the victims' stepfather. The sexual abuse did not stop until law enforcement intervened. 
Following his arrest, Woodard was diagnosed with pedophilia. The victims' mother and 
grandmother informed the district court that the victims still had nightmares and were 
afraid of the dark as a consequence of the sexual abuse. The female victim spoke of 
"feeling dirty a lot," and both children had undergone counseling.  
8 
 
 
 
 
The legislative intent underlying Jessica's Law is to protect children by removing 
perpetrators of sexual crimes against children from society. State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 
796, 823-24, 248 P.3d 256 (2011). The United States Supreme Court has observed that 
sex offenders represent a particularly serious threat in this country and that they are more 
likely than any other type of offender to commit violent crimes following their release. 
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 32-33, 122 S. Ct. 2017, 153 L. Ed. 2d 47 (2002). The State 
therefore has a particularly compelling interest in using incarceration as a means of 
protecting its youth from sexual offenders. 
 
We conclude that Woodard's sentences are not grossly disproportionate to the 
crimes. We therefore do not proceed to the second classification for comparisons under 
Eighth Amendment analysis. See Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. __, ___, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 
2022, 176 L. Ed 2d 825 (2010). Woodard's sentences do not violate the Eighth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution. 
 
We next turn to Woodard's claim that his sentences violate § 9 of the Kansas 
Constitution Bill of Rights, which prohibits inflicting cruel or unusual punishment.  
 
This court has set out a three-part test governing analysis of cruel or unusual 
punishment claims under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights: 
 
"(1) The nature of the offense and the character of the offender should be 
examined with particular regard to the degree of danger present to society; relevant to this 
inquiry are the facts of the crime, the violent or nonviolent nature of the offense, the 
extent of culpability for the injury resulting, and the penological purposes of the 
prescribed punishment; 
9 
 
 
 
"(2) A comparison of the punishment with punishments imposed in this 
jurisdiction for more serious offenses, and if among them are found more serious crimes 
punished less severely than the offense in question the challenged penalty is to that extent 
suspect; and 
"(3) A comparison of the penalty with punishments in other jurisdictions for the 
same offense." State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 367, 574 P.2d 950 (1978). 
 
No one factor controls. "Ultimately, one consideration may weigh so heavy that it 
directs the final conclusion," but "consideration should be given to each prong of the 
test." Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. at 161. 
 
The first prong of the Freeman test requires consideration of the nature of the 
offense and the character of the offender, with particular regard to the degree of danger 
present to society. The analysis of this prong closely tracks the analysis of the first 
classification under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Our earlier 
analysis of the nature of Woodard's criminal activity and its consequences for his victims 
and society applies with equal force here. We conclude that the sentences do not violate § 
9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and Freeman as applied to Woodard. 
 
The second prong of the Freeman test involves a comparison of Jessica's Law with 
the penalties for "more serious crimes" in Kansas. Woodard argues that his crime is less 
serious than homicide but is punished more severely.  
 
This argument suffers from several flaws. In the first place, it assumes that 
murderers necessarily receive more lenient sentences in Kansas than violators of Jessica's 
Law. This is not the case. In fact, the Kansas Criminal Code sets out a list of 
transgressions that constitute capital murder, which is an off-grid offense. K.S.A. 21-
3439. Capital murder is subject to punishment by death. K.S.A. 21-4624. The penalty for 
10 
 
 
 
homicide in Kansas may thus be much more severe than the penalties under Jessica's 
Law. See K.S.A. 21-4638; K.S.A. 21-4643. The fact that the penalty for certain 
categories of homicide may be less severe than the penalties for other, nonhomicide 
crimes does not automatically render the penalties for the nonhomicide crimes 
unconstitutional. There is no strict linear order of criminal activity that ranks all 
homicides as the most serious crimes and all nonhomicide crimes as less serious, with the 
corresponding penalties necessarily ranking in diminishing durations of imprisonment. 
 
Furthermore, as the State points out, Jessica's Law is not the only Kansas statute 
that provides for more severe penalties for nonhomicide crimes than for certain categories 
of homicide. Compare, e.g., rape, K.S.A. 21-3502, and aggravated kidnapping, K.S.A. 
21-3420, which are severity level 1 offenses, with reckless second-degree murder, K.S.A. 
21-3402(b), which is a severity level 2 offense. 
 
The United States Supreme Court has held that a life sentence can be 
constitutional, even for a nonviolent property crime. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 
957, 962-64, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 115 L. Ed. 2d 836 (1990) (upholding sentence of life 
without possibility of parole for defendant convicted of possessing more than 650 grams 
of cocaine, although it was his first felony offense); Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 
274, 100 S. Ct. 1133, 63 L. Ed. 2d 382 (1980) (upholding life sentence with possibility of 
parole, imposed under a Texas recidivist statute, for defendant convicted of obtaining 
$120.75 by false pretenses, an offense normally punishable by imprisonment for 2 to 20 
years).  
 
This court has held that a sentence of 18 years at hard labor for possession and sale 
of marijuana was not cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Coutcher, 198 Kan. 282, 
Syl. ¶ 4, 424 P.2d 865 (1967). In a case more similar to Woodard's, this court held that a 
11 
 
 
 
sentence of a minimum of 80 years to a maximum of life for four counts of criminal 
indecent liberties with a child and three counts of aggravated criminal sodomy was not so 
oppressive that it constituted an abuse of discretion. State v. Nunn, 247 Kan. 576, Syl. ¶ 
4, 802 P.2d 547 (1990).   
 
Comparing the penalty under K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(1)(C) with the punishments 
imposed for other offenses in Kansas, we do not conclude that the penalty set out in 
Jessica's Law is disproportionately harsh. 
  
The third part of the Freeman test calls on us to compare the penalty under 
Jessica's Law with the penalties for similar offenses in other jurisdictions. Such a 
comparison shows that the hard 25 life sentence is not out of proportion to sentences 
imposed for similar crimes in other states, which have withstood allegations of cruel and 
unusual punishment.  
 
In Adaway v. State, 902 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2005), the Florida Supreme Court upheld 
the constitutionality of a statute mandating life imprisonment without the possibility of 
parole for persons convicted of "capital sexual battery," a crime similar to aggravated 
indecent liberties with a child. In Martin v. Commonwealth, 493 S.W.2d 714 (Ky. App. 
1973), the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the imposition of life imprisonment 
without parole on a 24-year-old rape perpetrator. In State v. Berniard, 860 So. 2d 66 (La. 
App. 2003), the Louisiana Court of Appeals held that a mandatory sentence of life 
imprisonment was not excessive for aggravated rape. In State v. Thorp, 356 Mont. 150, 
231 P.3d 1096 (2010), the Montana Supreme Court held that a sentence of life 
imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the crime of sexual intercourse without 
consent did not violate constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. 
In State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 502 S.E.2d 819 (1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1111 
12 
 
 
 
(1999), the court held that imposition of a mandatory life sentence on a juvenile 
defendant who was tried as an adult and convicted of first-degree sexual offense was not 
constitutionally excessive. Finally, in State v. Alwinger, 236 Or. App. 240, 236 P.3d 755 
(2010), the court held that a mandatory 25-year prison term for a sexual offense against a 
child violated neither the United States nor the Oregon constitutional prohibitions against 
cruel and unusual punishment; see also State v. Wiese, 238 Or. App. 426, 241 P.3d 1210 
(2010) (concurrent 25-year terms for sodomy and rape not disproportionate to offenses 
and not cruel and unusual); State v. Meyrovich, 204 Or. App. 385, 129 P.3d 729 (2006), 
rev. denied 340 Or. 673 (2006), the Oregon Court of Appeals held that a life sentence 
was not disproportionate and not cruel and unusual for a repeat offender who forcibly 
kissed a woman on the neck. 
 
This list, while not exhaustive, demonstrates that the Kansas sentencing scheme is 
not out of line with other jurisdictions. See generally Annot. 33 A.L.R.3d 335 (Length of 
sentence as violation of constitutional provisions prohibiting cruel and unusual 
punishment). Woodard concedes on appeal that he can cite to no jurisdiction that has 
found a sentence structured similarly to the Kansas version of Jessica's Law to be 
unconstitutional under either the federal or a state constitutional prohibition on cruel or 
unusual punishment. 
 
We therefore conclude that Jessica's Law is not disproportionate with respect to 
punishments in other jurisdictions for similar crimes. 
 
Woodard points out that the legislature could have chosen less onerous measures, 
such as electronic monitoring or civil confinement that might accomplish some of the 
societal goals of Jessica's Law. It is not necessary for us to evaluate or criticize those 
alternate measures of punishment, because the choice of how this State should best 
13 
 
 
 
respond to criminal conduct is a legislative, not a judicial, decision. See Kansas Lottery, 
286 Kan. at 562. 
 
B. Did the District Court Commit Reversible Error When It Denied Woodard's Motion 
for Departure from the Hard 25 Life Sentence Applicable under Jessica's Law? 
 
Woodard argued to the district court that it should grant him a departure under 
K.S.A. 21-4643(d) because the degree of harm resulting from his criminal conduct was 
less than typical for aggravated indecent liberties―he did not engage in violence, he did 
not penetrate the children, and he did not induce them to perform sexual acts for him. The 
district court denied the motion and rejected Woodard's claims that the harm was less 
significant than in other cases of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. 
 
The standard for reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to depart under 
K.S.A. 21-4643(d) is abuse of discretion. State v. Hyche, 293 Kan. 602, 605, 265 P.3d 
1172 (2011). 
 
The district court heard the testimony of the victims' mother and maternal 
grandmother, who described substantial trauma to the children and the family structures. 
The testimony emphasized the short- and long-term consequences of Woodard's abuse of 
the trust that the children and other family members had placed in him. In denying the 
motion to depart, the district court explicitly and at some length discussed the position of 
trust that Woodard exploited and the psychological harm to the victims.  
 
This court has affirmed the denial of a motion to depart when the appellant and the 
victim had a relationship of great trust. Hyche, 293 Kan. at 606; State v. Mendoza, 292 
14 
 
 
 
Kan. 933, 936, 258 P.3d 383 (2011); State v. Chavez, 292 Kan. 464, 470, 254 P.3d 539 
(2011); State v. Trevino, 290 Kan. 317, 323, 227 P.3d 951 (2010). 
 
Although Woodard characterizes his conduct as "nonviolent," we disagree. Black's 
Law Dictionary defines a violent crime as "a crime that has as an element the use, 
attempted use, threatened use, or substantial risk of use of physical force against the 
person or property of another." Black's Law Dictionary 400 (8th ed. 2004). K.S.A. 22-
3717(d)(2)(C) defines aggravated indecent liberties with a child under K.S.A. 21-3504(a) 
to be a sexually violent crime. This act of sexual violence includes "[a]ny lewd fondling 
or touching of the person of either the child or the offender," K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(3)(A), 
which describes the conduct to which Woodard pled guilty. Woodard committed three 
violent crimes. 
 
The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the departure 
sought by Woodard. 
 
We affirm the district court's imposition of Woodard's sentences in the face of his 
claims of both constitutional violations and abuse of discretion.