Opinion ID: 2465149
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sentencing appeal

Text: Hall also now argues that he was incompetent to be sentenced on the first-degree murder. Again, this was not raised below. But our appellate consideration is not foreclosed by an absence of jurisdiction. A guilty plea does not surrender a defendant's right to appeal a sentence. See State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200, 226, 195 P.3d 753 (2008) (citing State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 398, 122 P.3d 356 [2005]) (defendant pleading guilty may still challenge sentence imposed in some circumstances). And first-degree murder is an off-grid crime unaffected by the statutory ban on appeals of presumptive sentences. See K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(1). Given Davis, identification of competency as a fundamental due process concern, we dispense with our purely prudential reluctance to reach an issue not presented in district court and move to the merits. According to the record before us, as mentioned, Hough's report of his evaluation did not reach the parties or the district judge before Hall pleaded guilty as charged. But it did reach all concerned before sentencing. And, even though Hough's evaluation had been sought to support a mental disease or defect defense rather than a competency challenge, it addressed Hall's competency. Hough concluded that, despite Hall's substantial mental health deficiencies, Hall was competent and could assist in his defense. The transcript of Hall's sentencing does not persuade us that the district judge should have concluded otherwise, particularly with no prompting from the defense. Defendant Christopher Dwayne Hall's appeal of his convictions is dismissed. His sentence is affirmed. BRUCE T. GATTERMAN, District Judge, assigned.