Opinion ID: 2378023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Issue 8: We are without jurisdiction to review McCaslin's challenge to the presumptive sentences.

Text: McCaslin argues that the trial court's imposition of the aggravated terms in the presumptive grid boxes for the sentencing on the rape and aggravated arson convictions violates the law established in Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007). McCaslin received 246 months imprisonment for the rape conviction and 61 months for the aggravated arson conviction, both of which are the aggravated terms in their respective sentence boxes. He claims these sentences violate Cunningham because it is impossible for a judge to impose the aggravated sentences without making findings of fact, which in turn is an unconstitutional act because the facts must be submitted to the jury. The State responds that McCaslin received presumptive sentences that this court has no jurisdiction to review, citing State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, 840-42, 190 P.3d 207 (2008). We agree. There, we examined the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act in the wake of Apprendi and its progeny. We concluded that K.S.A. 21-4704(e)(1) grants a judge discretion to sentence a criminal defendant to any term within the presumptive grid block, as determined by the conviction and the defendant's criminal history. Johnson, 286 Kan. at 851, 190 P.3d 207. Consequently, we held that under K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(1), this court is without jurisdiction to consider [the defendant's] challenge to his presumptive sentences even if those sentences are to the longest term in the presumptive grid block for his convictions. 286 Kan. at 851-52, 190 P.3d 207; Houston, 289 Kan. at 278, 213 P.3d 728.