Title: Kansas v. Nguyen
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 112316
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 20, 2016

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 112,316 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
EBONY NGUYEN, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
1. 
Interpretation of the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, K.S.A. 2015 
Supp. 21-6801 et seq., is a question of law subject to unlimited review. 
 
2. 
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806(c) does not give district courts discretion to depart 
from a life sentence for felony murder. 
 
3. 
 
In this case, the district court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a 
downward durational departure from a sentence of life imprisonment for a felony-murder 
conviction. 
 
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; JOSEPH BRIBIESCA, judge. Opinion filed May 20, 2016. 
Affirmed. 
 
Joanna Labastida, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief 
for appellant. 
2 
 
 
 
 
Boyd K. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Mark Bennett, district 
attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee. 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
NUSS, C.J.:  Ebony R. Nguyen appeals the district court's denial of her motion for a 
downward durational departure of her life sentence for felony murder. Because the 
district court had no discretion to depart, we reject Nguyen's arguments and affirm. 
 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 
The facts are undisputed. Nguyen unwittingly received counterfeit money from 
Jordan Turner in exchange for her marijuana. Upon discovering the deception and with 
the assistance of three others, Nguyen retaliated by luring Turner to a secluded location 
where he was shot and killed. With kidnapping serving as the underlying felony, Nguyen 
pled no contest to one count of felony murder under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5402(a)(2). 
 
Before Nguyen was sentenced, she filed a motion for durational departure from a 
life sentence and sought a sanction of between 147 to 165 months in prison. At the 
hearing on the motion the district court stated it had no discretion to depart from the life 
sentence but, if so, it would not have granted departure: 
 
"Well, I'll say for the record that in my opinion, the Court doesn't have discretion. This is 
an off-grid offense, and it calls for a life sentence. 
 
"Now, on appeal, if the appellate court were to disagree with that, my position, 
for purposes of the record, is that I would be unable to find substantial and compelling 
reasons to depart. Miss Nguyen was the driving force behind the shooting in this case, 
and under those circumstances, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Court to depart, 
3 
 
 
 
so if the Court did have the discretion to consider the motion to depart, the Court would 
deny the motion." 
 
 
Accordingly, the court denied Nguyen's motion and imposed a life sentence with 
parole eligibility after 20 years. See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3717. Nguyen timely appealed 
her sentence. 
 
Our jurisdiction is proper under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3), (4) (maximum 
sentence of life imprisonment imposed for an off-grid crime). 
 
More facts will be added as necessary to the analysis. 
 
ANALYSIS 
 
Issue:  The district court did not err in concluding that K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806(c) 
does not authorize a district court to depart from a life sentence for felony murder. 
 
Nguyen argues that because K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806(c) is silent on durational 
departures for off-grid crimes, sentencing courts have discretion to grant them—at least 
for felony murder. She specifically contends this court implicitly acknowledged such 
discretion to depart from a life sentence for felony murder in State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 
624, 88 P.3d 218 (2004). The State basically counters that the statute's language reveals 
the intent of the legislature is to prohibit durational departures from sentences for off-grid 
crimes like felony murder. 
 
Nguyen further argues that once we have agreed the district court had departure 
discretion, several factors warrant the court's exercise of that discretion to reduce her 
sentence:  her lack of criminal history, her limited role in the murder, and her age and 
4 
 
 
 
lack of maturity. But because we reject Nguyen's first argument, we do not reach her 
second one. 
 
Standard of review 
 
Whether the district court has discretion to grant a durational departure from a 
felony-murder life sentence requires interpretation of the revised Kansas Sentencing 
Guidelines Act (KSGA), K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6801 et seq., a question of law subject to 
unlimited review. State v. Luarks, 302 Kan. 972, 976, 360 P.3d 418 (2015) (citing State v. 
Keel, 302 Kan. 560, 571, 357 P.3d 251 [2015]). 
 
In exercising our unlimited review, we acknowledge that "'[t]he fundamental rule 
to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that 
intent can be ascertained.'" Neighbor v. Westar Energy, Inc., 301 Kan. 916, 918, 349 P.3d 
469 (2015). A statute's language is our paramount consideration because "'"the best and 
only safe rule for ascertaining the intention of the makers of any written law is to abide 
by the language they have used."'" State v. Looney, 299 Kan. 903, 906, 327 P.3d 425 
(2014) (citing Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107, 1143, 319 P.3d 1196 [2014] [quoting 
Wright v. Noell, 16 Kan. 601, 607, 1876 WL 1081 (1876)]). "When statutory language is 
plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to statutory construction. An appellate 
court merely interprets the language as it appears; it is not free to speculate and cannot 
read into the statute language not readily found there." State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of 
Wichita, 303 Kan. 650, 659, 367 P.3d 282 (2016). 
 
When legislative intent cannot be derived from the plain language of the statute, 
this court may look to legislative history or employ other methods of statutory 
construction. State v. Holt, 298 Kan. 469, 474, 313 P.3d 826 (2013). 
 
5 
 
 
 
 
Discussion 
 
We start our analysis by acknowledging that K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806(c) 
establishes the sentencing for certain off-grid crimes, including felony murder under 
K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5402(a)(2). The sentencing statute provides: 
 
"Violations of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5401, 21-5402, 21-5421, 21-5422 and 21-
5901, and amendments thereto, are off-grid crimes for the purpose of sentencing. Except 
as otherwise provided by K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6617, 21-6618, 21-6619, 21-6622, 21-
6624, 21-6625, 21-6628, and 21-6629, and amendments thereto, the sentence shall be 
imprisonment for life and shall not be subject to statutory provisions for suspended 
sentence, community service or probation." (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-
6806(c). 
 
We next note that the exceptions listed in K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806(c)—K.S.A. 
2015 Supp. 21-6617, 21-6618, 21-6619, 21-6622, 21-6624, 21-6625, 21-6628 and 21-
6629—do not provide any exceptions to a life sentence for felony murder. These statutes 
primarily provide a sentencing scheme for capital murder. 
 
Nguyen argues this court essentially interpreted this language in a predecessor 
statute—K.S.A. 21-4706(c)—to answer this departure question in State v. Gleason, 277 
Kan. 624. There, the district court denied the defendant's request for a durational 
departure on his conviction of felony murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment 
with no possibility of parole for 20 years. We held that the defendant was not entitled to a 
reduced sentence despite the lighter sentences his codefendants received as part of their 
plea bargains in which they pled guilty to less serious offenses. 277 Kan. at 656. Nguyen 
argues that by reviewing the issue of departure from a life sentence in Gleason, this court 
implicitly acknowledged the district court had discretion to consider a departure. 
 
6 
 
 
 
But Nguyen's reliance on Gleason is misplaced. The issue before this court 
concerned whether the district court was required to compare defendant's sentence to the 
lesser sentences of his codefendants, not whether the sentencing statute allowed for 
durational departure. 277 Kan. at 656. So, we reject Nguyen's argument that in Gleason 
we implicitly acknowledged a district court's discretion to depart from a life sentence for 
felony murder. 
 
Moreover, since Gleason we twice have expressly stated that the life sentence for 
felony murder is mandatory. Four years after Gleason we stated:  "[T]he district court 
imposed a mandatory life sentence for the felony murder" and declared:  "The sentence 
imposed for [the defendant's] felony murder, a mandatory life sentence, conforms to the 
statutory provisions." (Emphasis added.) State v. Heath, 285 Kan. 1018, 1019, 179 P.3d 
403 (2008). In Heath we cited the previous, substantially similar felony-murder 
sentencing statute in effect at the time, K.S.A. 21-4706(c), which provided in relevant 
part:  "Violations of K.S.A. 21-3401 [(b) is felony murder] . . . are off-grid crimes for the 
purpose of sentencing. . . . [T]he sentence shall be imprisonment for life and shall not be 
subject to statutory provisions for suspended sentence, community service or probation." 
(Emphasis added.) 
 
Six years after Heath we similarly pronounced in State v. Brown, 300 Kan. 542, 
562-63, 331 P.3d 781 (2014): 
 
"A person convicted of felony murder is subject to a mandatory sentence of life 
imprisonment. See K.S.A. 21-4706(c). A person serving a life sentence for a felony 
murder committed after July 1, 1999, becomes parole eligible after 20 years of 
confinement. K.S.A. 22-3717(b)(2)." (Emphasis added.) 
 
7 
 
 
 
These declarations are consistent with the plain language of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 
21-6806(c)—and its predecessor K.S.A. 21-4706(c)—which provides that a sentence for 
felony murder "shall be imprisonment for life." (Emphasis added.) See also State v. 
Brown, 303 Kan. 995, 1006, ___ P.3d ___, (March 11, 2016) (describing K.S.A. 2014 
Supp. 21-6806[c] as an example of "mandatory life sentences assigned by the legislature 
for off-grid crimes"). 
 
Despite the foregoing, in none of these decisions did we expressly analyze this 
particular statutory phrase—"the sentence shall be imprisonment for life"—with the 
language that immediately follows it:  "and shall not be subject to statutory provisions for 
suspended sentence, community service or probation." K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806(c). 
Not surprisingly, Nguyen and the State differ on the meaning and possible significance of 
this language and whether it introduces ambiguity into the statute. 
 
Nguyen argues that by listing "suspended sentence, community service or 
probation" the legislature merely prohibited them and any similar unlisted dispositional 
departures but did not prohibit the durational departure she requested. The State responds 
this language shows that the intent of the legislature was to disallow any departures. 
 
To assist our analysis, we observe that after Nguyen committed her crime in 
March 2013, the legislature added language to another statute to specifically govern 
felony-murder sentences. Although the amendment to the statute applies to felony 
murders committed after July 1, 2014, it is of guidance in determining the legislative 
intent in K.S.A. 21-6806(c). Cf. Brown, 303 Kan. at 1006 (court does not interpret 
statutes in isolation but considers provisions of an act in pari materia with view to 
reconciling, bringing provisions into workable harmony) (citing State v. Hobbs, 301 Kan. 
203, 210-11, 340 P.3d 1179 [2015]). 
 
8 
 
 
 
The amendment to that statute, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6620, provides in relevant 
part: 
 
"[A] defendant convicted of murder in the first degree as described in subsection (a)(2) 
[felony murder] of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5402, and amendments thereto, shall be 
sentenced to imprisonment for life and shall not be eligible for probation or suspension, 
modification or reduction of sentence. In addition, the defendant shall not be eligible for 
parole prior to serving 25 years' imprisonment, and such 25 years' imprisonment shall not 
be reduced by the application of good time credits. No other sentence shall be permitted." 
(Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6620(b)(1). 
 
When, as here, language has been added to an existing statute, the issue often 
becomes whether the new language is meant to constitute substantive legislative changes 
or simply to codify prior caselaw, e.g., to clarify. See Stueckemann v. City of Basehor, 
301 Kan. 718, 745, 348 P.3d 526 (2015) (distinguishing substantive legislative changes 
from mere codification of prior caselaw); see also Brennan v. Kansas Insurance 
Guaranty Ass'n, 293 Kan. 446, 458, 264 P.3d 102 (2011) ("When an original statute is 
ambiguous, the legislative purpose may be to clarify the statute's ambiguities, not to 
change the law."); Estate of Soupene v. Lignitz, 265 Kan. 217, 222, 960 P.2d 205 (1998) 
(amendment which in effect construes and clarifies a prior statute must be accepted as the 
legislative declaration of the meaning of the original act). 
 
Faced with our decisions in Heath in 2008 and Brown in 2014, the legislature 
could have chosen to change this caselaw. In other words, it could have chosen to make 
substantive changes in K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806 and clearly establish that the life 
sentence for felony murder was not mandatory—i.e., durational departures were 
permitted. But the legislature did not do so. See Hall v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 286 Kan. 
777, 785, 189 P.3d 508 (2008) (when legislature does not modify statute to avoid a 
standing judicial construction of that statute, the legislature is presumed to agree with that 
9 
 
 
 
judicial construction). Instead, it chose to address the subject of felony-murder sentences 
in K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6620, and the statute's amended language certainly cannot be 
said to override Heath and Brown. The amendment provides that defendant "shall not be 
eligible for . . . modification or reduction of sentence" and "the defendant shall not be 
eligible for parole prior to serving 25 years' imprisonment, and such 25 years' 
imprisonment shall not be reduced by the application of good time credits. No other 
sentence shall be permitted." K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6620(b)(1). 
 
Indeed, the legislature chose the opposite approach to substantive change. By 
including disqualifying language far beyond the concepts of probation and suspension in 
21-6620, the legislature essentially only codified the caselaw. We therefore conclude that 
these additions are merely meant to clarify the legislative intent:  the mandatory sentence 
for felony murder is life imprisonment. 
 
The State makes additional arguments that we conclude support the holding that a 
life sentence is mandatory for felony murder, i.e., no departures are permitted. The State 
first notes that the general sentencing statute for on-grid crimes, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-
6815, contains language specifically authorizing departures. Subsection (a) provides in 
relevant part:  "[T]he sentencing judge shall impose the presumptive sentence provided 
by the sentencing guidelines unless the judge finds substantial and compelling reasons to 
impose a departure sentence." (Emphasis added.) Subsections (c)(1) and (2) then provide 
the nonexclusive lists of mitigating and aggravating factors which may be considered by 
the judge in determining whether substantial and compelling reasons for a departure 
exist. 
 
The State next observes that while mandatory life sentences for some types of off-
grid crimes can nevertheless be eligible for departure, their empowering statutes are 
explicit in their departure authorization. It points to the statute controlling Jessica's Law 
10 
 
 
 
sentencing, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6627, which provides for a mandatory minimum of 
imprisonment for certain offenders. Jessica's Law, like K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806(c), 
generally prohibits departures for its off-grid crimes. And it specifically includes 
language echoing that of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6620(b)(1): 
 
"When a person is sentenced pursuant to subsection (a) or (b), such person shall 
be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years, 40 
years or be sentenced as determined in subsection (a)(2) or subsection (b)(2), whichever 
is applicable, and shall not be eligible for probation or suspension, modification or 
reduction of sentence. In addition, a person sentenced pursuant to this section shall not be 
eligible for parole prior to serving such mandatory term of imprisonment, and such 
imprisonment shall not be reduced by the application of good time credits." (Emphasis 
added.) K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6627(c). 
 
But unlike K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806(c), after establishing a mandatory 
minimum term of imprisonment (not less than 25 years), Jessica's Law goes on to 
expressly authorize, and provide a procedure for, departing from this mandatory 
sentence:  "[T]he sentencing judge shall impose the mandatory minimum term of 
imprisonment provided by subsection (a), unless the judge finds substantial and 
compelling reasons, following a review of mitigating circumstances, to impose a 
departure." (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6627(d)(1); see also State v. 
Spencer, 291 Kan. 796, 803, 248 P.3d 256 (2011). 
 
Building on the State's argument, we also doubt that the legislature intended for 
the crimes it identified in the first sentence of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806(c)—21-5401 
(capital murder); 21-5402 (first-degree murder); 21-5421 (terrorism); 21-5422 (illegal use 
of weapons of mass destruction); and 21-5901 (treason)—to be eligible for a durational 
departure from a life sentence. Our skepticism is particularly valid when the legislature 
has failed to provide any guidance to the sentencing court on when and how to depart 
11 
 
 
 
from these most serious crimes. Compare K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6627(d)(1) (Jessica's 
Law sentencing statute provides guidance on how and when to depart) and 21-6815 
(general departure statute for presumptive sentences provides guidance on how and when 
to depart). These two statutes further demonstrate that had the legislature intended to 
allow departures from a mandatory life sentence for felony murder, it clearly knew how 
to enact such provisions. Accordingly, we hold that by failing to provide an exception for 
felony murder, the legislature intended to prevent departures from the mandatory life 
sentence. See State v. Looney, 299 Kan. at 906 (The most fundamental rule of statutory 
construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained.). 
 
As a result, we hold that K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6806(c) does not give district 
courts discretion to depart from a life sentence for felony murder. Given this holding, we 
need not consider the merits of Nguyen's motion for downward durational departure. 
 
The decision of the district court is affirmed.