Opinion ID: 2382800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Issue 3: Sufficiency of the Charging Document

Text: Garza next argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him under K.S.A. 21-4643 because the charging instrument did not allege he was 18 years of age or older. He argues he should be sentenced under the guidelines because of this defect. This issue was raised for the first time on appeal, and it fails under this court's analysis in Gonzales, 289 Kan. 351, 212 P.3d 215, and State v. Gracey, 288 Kan. 252, 200 P.3d 1275 (2009). Whether a charging document sufficiently confers subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law subject to unlimited review. The test governing the sufficiency of the charging document depends upon when the issue is raised. If it is challenged for the first time on appeal, the defendant must show the alleged defect either: (1) prejudiced the defendant's preparation of a defense; (2) impaired the defendant's ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution; or (3) limited the defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial. Gracey, 288 Kan. at 254, 200 P.3d 1275. In Gonzales, 289 Kan. at 368-69, 212 P.3d 215, and Gracey, 288 Kan. at 256-57, 200 P.3d 1275, this court upheld the charging document's validity under identical facts to those presented here. In all three cases, the information's caption contained the defendant's date of birth and the document stated it was for an off-grid felony. Under these circumstances and in light of the standard of review, this court held the defendant was adequately informed about the crime charged and the penalty. Gonzales, 289 Kan. at 369, 212 P.3d 215; Gracey, 288 Kan. at 257, 200 P.3d 1275. We believe the same is true in this appeal. The failure to allege Garza was 18 years of age or older does not invalidate his conviction.