Opinion ID: 161879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 28 The resolution of these cases turns on whether the Kansas courts affirmed appellants' convictions based on separate crimes from those for which they were charged, tried, and convicted, or whether the courts affirmed their convictions based on the same crimes. If the courts affirmed the convictions based on separate crimes, then they violated appellants' rights to due process and a jury trial. If they affirmed based on the same crimes, however, the appellants have no federal constitutional claim. According to the majority's characterization, the Kansas courts sentenced the appellants for crimes for which they were not charged, tried, or convicted, supra at 1110, 1114, and the issue is therefore not merely a matter of sentencing, supra at 1112. I am convinced, however, that the more accurate characterization is that the Kansas courts affirmed appellants' convictions for the same crimes for which they were tried, but reduced appellants' sentences to comply with the Kansas Supreme Court decisions in State v. Williams, 250 Kan. 730, 829 P.2d 892 (Kan.1992), and Carmichael v. State, 255 Kan. 10, 872 P.2d 240 (Kan.1994). In my view, the resentencing remedy required neither the Kansas courts nor this court to take judicial notice of the essential element of kinship, supra at 1114, and it did not violate appellants' constitutional rights. 29 Even if, as the majority concludes, the resentencing remedy violated the appellants' rights to due process and to a jury trial, this error is a harmless one that does not require reversal. 30 For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. 31