Opinion ID: 2598039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is Morningstar's off-grid sentence valid?

Text: A question remains as to whether the failure to instruct the jury on Morningstar's age means the aggravated sentence under Jessica's Law is invalid. When, as here, a party did not object to the instruction at trial, this court reviews the instruction for clear error. See State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572, 581, 147 P.3d 125 (2006). Reversal is proper if and only if there was a real possibility the jury would have returned a different verdict. 282 Kan. at 581, 147 P.3d 125. For this issue, we again turn to the rationale in Bello, where the court answered this question by applying Apprendi. The Bello court explained: In Apprendi, the Supreme Court clarified that merely because a state legislature places a sentence enhancing factor within the sentencing provisions of the criminal code does not mean that the factor is not an essential element of the offense. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 495, 120 S.Ct. 2348. If a `sentencing factor' is used to increase a defendant's sentence beyond the maximum authorized statutory sentence, it is the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense than the one covered by the jury's guilty verdict. (Emphasis omitted.) 288 Kan. at ___, 211 P.3d at 144. Based on Apprendi and its progeny, the Bello court stated, a defendant's right to a jury trial is violated where the judge makes the sentence enhancement factfinding, rather than the jury. 288 Kan. at ___, 211 P.3d at 144. The Bello court concluded, [T]he fact that Bello was age 18 years or older at the time he committed the offense needed to have been submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 288 Kan. at ___, 211 P.3d at 145 (citing State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394, Syl. ¶ 2, 23 P.3d 801 [2001]). In Morningstar's case, the State also failed to present evidence of his age at trial, and the jury was not instructed to make a finding regarding Morningstar's age. Applying the Bello holding to the statutes and facts applicable here, we find that when a defendant is charged with an off-grid severity level offense of rape of a child under 14 years of age, the defendant's age is an element that must be submitted first to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a defendant can be sentenced for the off-grid severity level offense specified in K.S.A. 21-4643. In other words, the instructions issued do not amount to clear error because the rape conviction is valid. But the recommended rape instruction in PIK Crim.3d 57.01, which was used in Morningstar's case, is insufficient to sentence a defendant to the off-grid offense under K.S.A. 21-4643. Morningstar's conviction is upheld, but the sentence imposed on him under K.S.A. 21-4643 is vacated. The case is remanded for resentencing on Count One of the complaint (rape of a child under 14 years of age) as a felony on the KSGA nondrug sentencing grid.