Opinion ID: 1363141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The trial court erred, as a matter of law, in sentencing defendant under the Habitual Criminal Statute.

Text: Defendant does not challenge the validity of the Habitual Criminal Act (K.S.A. 21-4504), nor does he challenge the adequacy of the evidence of the prior conviction. Defendant contends the court acted vindictively and arbitrarily by enhancing the sentence. For support of this contention, defendant relies on various comments during the trial in which the trial court expressed concern with the slow pace of the defense and that the defendant, rather than his attorney, appeared to be running this case. No statements of which defendant was complaining occurred at sentencing. It is necessary the complaining party show vindictive or retaliatory motives, or that judicial discretion was abused to obviate the penalty imposed. See State v. Eaton, 213 Kan. 86, 89, 515 P.2d 807 (1973). This court will not disturb a sentence imposed by a trial court on the ground it is excessive, provided it is within the limits prescribed by law and within the realm of discretion on the part of the trial court, and the sentence is not the result of partiality, prejudice, oppression or corrupt motive. State v. Bradley, 215 Kan. 642, 648, 527 P.2d 988 (1974); State v. Bradley, 130 Kan. 759, 761, 288 Pac. 735 (1930). All sentences were to run consecutively. In the aggregate, defendant was sentenced to 122 years to life on Counts 1-5 and to life on Count 7. (Count 6 was a first degree premeditated murder charge for the death of Nick Weber who was the victim in Count 7, the felony murder charge. Count 6 was dismissed.) We have carefully reviewed the record and there is no evidence indicating defendant's sentencing was the product of any vindictive or retaliatory motive or that the trial court abused its discretion. All points raised have been considered and found to be without merit, whether or not specifically set forth herein. The judgment is affirmed.