Opinion ID: 2453630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Identical Offense Doctrine

Text: Hernandez argues that the premeditation required for premeditated first-degree murder is no different from the intentional killing required for intentional second-degree murder. Further, Hernandez argues that the instructions defining premeditation and intentional imply that acting on purpose, with knowledge of one's actions, satisfies both elements. This court rejected this argument in State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 951, 190 P.3d 937 (2008). It is well established that offenses are identical when they have the same elements. [Citations omitted.] In order to determine whether the elements are identical for sentencing purposes, an appellate court must consider the statutory elements and that review is unlimited. Warledo, 286 Kan. at 951, 190 P.3d 937. In Warledo, this court considered the argument that premeditated first-degree murder and intentional second-degree murder run afoul of the identical offense sentencing doctrine because there is no appreciable difference between premeditation and intentional. This court concluded that the two crimes are clearly not identical. Warledo, 286 Kan. at 951, 190 P.3d 937. Hernandez has not presented any new arguments or rationale that persuades us to change our analysis of this issue.