Opinion ID: 2521455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was McAdam Wrongly Decided?

Text: The State also contends that McAdam was wrongly decided because it did not take into account the legislative history behind K.S.A. 65-4159(a), which shows that the legislature intended to enhance the penalty for persons who manufacture methamphetamine. Barnes counters that questions of legislative intent are irrelevant where the statutes involved are clear and unambiguous. See State v. Thrash, 267 Kan. 715, 716-17, 987 P.2d 345 (1999) (When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the appellate courts will not speculate as to the legislative intent behind it and will not read such a statute so as to add something not readily found in the statute.) The McAdam court characterized legislative intent as the critical issue in the case. 277 Kan. at 143. However, the court considered the wording of the statutes involved as evidence of legislative intent rather than looking at legislative history. 277 Kan. at 144. The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted. State v. Brown, 272 Kan. 843, 846, 35 P.3d 910 (2001). Whatever the legislature may have intended (which they have not clarified with Substitute for House Bill 2777), the end result was that it created two statutes which, under the facts presented in McAdam and this case, contained identical elements but provided different penalties. As a result, under the rule stated in Nunn, Clements, and now McAdam, a defendant can only be sentenced to the lesser penalty. The State has failed to establish why McAdam should not apply to this appeal. Barnes' sentence for aiding and abetting the manufacture of methamphetamine is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing consistent with McAdam. Sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.