Opinion ID: 2630937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plotner's motion for a downward durational departure

Text: The sentencing statute in this case mandates a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years served unless the judge finds substantial and compelling reasons, following a review of mitigating circumstances, to impose a departure. K.S.A. 21-4643(a) and (d). But the statute also provides a nonexclusive list of mitigating factors district court judges may consider when determining whether there are substantial and compelling reasons for departure. K.S.A. 21-4643(d)(1)-(6). An appellate court reviews a district court's determination of whether mitigating circumstances presented under [K.S.A. 21-4643] are substantial and compelling for an abuse of discretion. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. at 165, 194 P.3d 1195. Plotner argues the following mitigating circumstances: (1) He took responsibility for his actions; (2) he showed deep remorse for his actions; (3) he purposefully pled guilty in order to save the victims from testifying at trial; (4) the sexual acts between him and the oldest victim were not committed forcefully; (5) he had no significant criminal record prior to this crime-specifically, no prior sexually-motivated convictions; (6) he was relatively young at the time the crimes were committed; and (7) even with the requested downward departure, he would serve a considerable sentence. A district court judge is required to undertake a two-step analysis when determining whether a departure motion should be granted. A district court judge first reviews the mitigating circumstances, and then determines whether substantial and compelling reasons warrant a departure. State v. Spotts, 288 Kan. 650, 655, 206 P.3d 510 (2009) (citing Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. at 164, 194 P.3d 1195). Specificity by the district court judge when making his or her determination is not statutorily required, though specificity is required if the district court judge decides departure is warranted, i.e., in those circumstances the judge shall state on the record... the substantial and compelling reasons for the departure. K.S.A. 21-4643(d). Here, after considering the circumstances Plotner advanced, which included: listening to arguments made by his attorney, listening to a statement by Plotner, and reviewing the motion for downward durational departure; listening to the State's arguments; and reading the victims' statements, the district court concluded Plotner had failed to present substantial and compelling mitigating circumstances. This was a sufficient evaluation. For its explanation, the district court stated it could not grant a downward durational departure without substantial and compelling reasons to do so. Further, it noted the reprehensible nature of Plotner's crimes and the legislature's intent to tie Jessica's Law sentences to the psychological damage children forced into sexual relationships suffer. The district court concluded that it found no reason to depart, but did order Plotner's sentences to run concurrently. While the district court did not explain its conclusion as thoroughly as the district courts in Spotts and Ortega-Cadelan , its explanation satisfies K.S.A. 21-4643(a) and (d). Reasonable people could agree with the district court's evaluation and conclusion. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plotner's motion for a downward sentencing departure.