Opinion ID: 2515823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: constitutionality of a hard 40 sentence

Text: On appeal, Sanders challenges the constitutionality of the Kansas hard 40 sentencing statute. Determining whether a statute violates the constitution is a question of law. When determining a question of law, this court may exercise an unlimited de novo standard of review. Lemuz v. Fieser, 261 Kan. 936, Syl. ¶ 1, 933 P.2d 134 (1997). This court recently held in State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18, Syl. ¶ 3, 11 P.3d 1147 (2000), that the Kansas hard 40 sentencing statute violates neither the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial nor the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. In addition, this court held in Conley that the hard 40 sentencing statute does not violate § 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. 270 Kan. 18, Syl. ¶ 3. Thus, Sanders' argument fails.