Opinion ID: 2330562
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sprung's sentencing claim fails for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Text: Finally, Sprung challenges the constitutionality of the aggravated presumptive sentence on his sodomy conviction, arguing the district court improperly imposed the sentence without requiring the aggravating factors be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Sprung recognizes that State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, Syl. ¶ 5, 190 P.3d 207 (2008), controls this issue, but he nevertheless includes the issue to preserve it for federal review. Under K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(1), appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review challenges to presumptive sentences. See Johnson, 286 Kan. at 851-52, 190 P.3d 207. Therefore, we affirm the Court of Appeals' dismissal of Sprung's sentencing challenge. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the sentence is vacated in part.