Opinion ID: 2352189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Campbell and Frazier

Text: Campbell, like Snellings, was accused of possessing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. At the time Campbell was decided and at the time Snellings committed the crime at issue in this case, K.S.A. 65-7006 provided in part: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, red phosphorus, lithium metal, sodium metal, iodine, anhydrous ammonia, pressurized ammonia or phenylpropanolamine, or their salts, isomers or salts of isomers with intent to use the product to manufacture a controlled substance. At the time of the Campbell decision, this offense was classified as a severity level 1 drug felony. See K.S.A. 65-7006(d). Under the version of the statute in effect when Snellings acted, it was a severity level 2 drug felony. See K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-7006(f). Campbell, like Snellings, argued his conviction should be classified as a severity level 4 drug felony because K.S.A. 65-4152(a)(3), a severity level 4 drug felony, had identical elements to K.S.A. 65-7006. K.S.A. 65-4152(a)(3), at the time of both Campbell's and Snellings' offenses, stated in relevant part: No person shall ... possess with intent to use ... (3) any drug paraphernalia to ... manufacture [or] compound ... a controlled substance in violation of the uniform controlled substances act. In comparing the two statutes, the Campbell court noted there were two components that had to be identical for the identical offense sentencing doctrine to apply: (1) the offender had to possess a prohibited item and (2) the offender must intend to use the item in his or her possession for the purpose of manufacturing a controlled substance. Because of the charge that was made against Campbell, the specific item at issue was ephedrine and the manufactured controlled substance was methamphetamine. Thus, for there to be overlapping and identical elements, both statutes had to prohibit the possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. See Campbell, 279 Kan. at 16, 106 P.3d 1129. The only way for both statutes to prohibit this conduct was for ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to be considered drug paraphernalia under K.S.A. 65-4152. The Campbell court concluded ephedrine or pseudoephedrine fell within the definition of drug paraphernalia and, therefore, the elements overlapped and were identical to the extent of the overlap. The court explained: The definition of drug paraphernalia in K.S.A. 65-4150(c) includes `products and materials of any kind' which are intended for use in manufacturing a controlled substance. Thus, the conduct prohibited by K.S.A. 65-4152(a)(3) may include a defendant's act of knowingly possessing a product with the intent to use it to manufacture a controlled substance. Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are products used in the manufacture of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. Indeed, in K.S.A. 65-7006(a) the legislature used the term `product' as a synonym for ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. In the circumstances of this case, the elements of the offense were knowingly possessing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with the intent to use it to manufacture a controlled substance. The elements were the same whether Campbell had been charged under the ephedrine statute or the drug paraphernalia statute. Consequently, he must be sentenced under the lesser penalty provisions for violation of 65-4152(a)(3). Campbell, 279 Kan. at 16-17, 106 P.3d 1129. In arguing for this result, Campbell cited and relied on the Court of Appeals decision in Frazier, 30 Kan.App.2d 398, 42 P.3d 188. The Frazier court had found that because the list of items in K.S.A. 65-4150(c) contained both the terms products and materials, [e]phedrine and pseudoephedrine fall within the definition of drug paraphernalia because they are materials used to manufacture a controlled substance. (Emphasis added.) Frazier, 30 Kan.App.2d at 404-05, 42 P.3d 188. Hence, like the Campbell court, the Frazier court held the defendant could only be charged with the lesser sentence applicable to possession of paraphernalia with intent to manufacture. Frazier, 30 Kan. App.2d at 405, 42 P.3d 188.