Opinion ID: 2639277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Court of Appeals' Unpublished Decision

Text: It is against this backdrop that the Court of Appeals faced Hitt's argument that his juvenile adjudications should not have been included in his criminal history score. The Court of Appeals first considered Apprendi, Gould, and Almendarez-Torres. These three were distinguished on the basis that in Almendarez-Torres, the defendant's prior aggravated felony convictions were held to be elements of the crime of illegal re-entry, whereas here, the issue is calculation of a criminal history score. The Court of Appeals observed that prior juvenile adjudications are not mentioned in the Kansas statute criminalizing aggravated battery, and the criminal history score is determined according to an entirely independent statute which applies to all crimes. Second, the Court of Appeals relied on LaMunyon to conclude that because Hitt failed to show his juvenile adjudications were unconstitutional, the adjudications were correctly included in his criminal history score. After the Court of Appeals' decision here, State v. Spates, 29 Kan. App.2d 1089, 36 P.3d 839 (2001), and State v. Hatt, 30 Kan. App.2d 84, 38 P.3d 738 (2002), were filed. Spates' and Hatt's treatment of the juvenile adjudication issue is consistent with the Court of Appeals' resolution of Hitt's claim.