Opinion ID: 2575468
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Issue 8: Was the sentence excessive?

Text: Pham argues that his sentence of life imprisonment followed by 1,306 months was an abuse of the district court's discretion and oppressive because the court imposed the maximum sentence for each conviction and ordered that they be served consecutively. He acknowledges that the district court had the authority to sentence him in this way. The State responds that Pham's sentence did not depart from the presumptive sentences and, under State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657, 999 P.2d 919 (2000), Pham does not raise jurisdictional grounds sufficient for appeal. We agree with the State. There is no departure from the presumptive sentences. And in Flores, 268 Kan. 657, this court squarely addressed Pham's issue, stating: As to crimes committed on or after July 1, 1995, claims of partiality, prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive do not raise jurisdictional grounds sufficient to allow an appeal of a presumptive sentence. 268 Kan. at 659. See K.S.A. 21-4721(e)(1). The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part: 1. Reversed and remanded for resentencing on a conviction of one count of aggravated robbery; the remaining convictions on five counts of aggravated robbery are reversed and their accompanying sentences vacated. 2. Reversed and remanded for resentencing on a conviction of conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary; the conviction for conspiracy to commit kidnapping is reversed and its accompanying sentence vacated. 3. Affirmed in all other respects.