Opinion ID: 2815298
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim Three – “Identical Offense”

Text: Mr. Brown claimed the state trial court violated his due process rights when it failed to sentence him under the identical offense doctrine, a Kansas state law doctrine that requires a sentencing court to impose the lesser of two sentences for identical crimes. See State v. Nunn, 768 P.2d 268, 284 (Kan. 1989). He argued the charges of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated battery against a law enforcement officer are identical. In his direct appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals disagreed, holding these two 4 crimes are separate, not identical. Brown v. State, No. 104,248, 2011 WL 3795475, at  (Kan. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2011) (unpublished). The federal district court said this was a reasonable construction of state law. More importantly for our purposes, the district court determined the identical offense claim did not adequately present a violation of the Constitution or federal law. For substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we agree. In his brief, Mr. Brown devotes most of his argument to contesting the state court of appeals’ ruling that the two crimes here are separate and not identical. Aplt. Br. at 9. In the last sentence of his brief, Mr. Brown alleges “a denial of my right to a fair trial Constitutionally.” Id. Apart from his claim being about his sentence rather than his trial, Mr. Brown simply has not made, as he must for a COA, “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). We deny a COA on this claim.