Opinion ID: 2330562
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sprung's aggravated indecent liberties convictions are multiplicitous.

Text: In the Court of Appeals, Sprung sought reversal of one of his two convictions for aggravated indecent liberties with a child, claiming the convictions were multiplicitous. He argued the charges arose from the same conduct and, by statutory definition, his conduct constituted only one violation of K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(3)(A). Sprung also raised a jury unanimity issue. The Court of Appeals panel rejected both the multiplicity and jury unanimity arguments. On review, Sprung renews his multiplicity argument but does not seek review of the panel's unanimity ruling; therefore, we will not address that issue on review. Multiplicity is the charging of a single offense in several counts of a complaint or information. Multiplicity creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 475, 133 P.3d 48 (2006). Whether convictions are multiplicitous is a question of law subject to de novo review. State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 117, 127, 253 P.3d 20 (2011). In resolving a multiplicity claim, we first determine whether the convictions arose from the same conduct. If so, we then determine whether, by statutory definition, that conduct constitutes one offense or two. Schoonover, 281 Kan. at 496, 133 P.3d 48. If the conduct constitutes only one offense, then both components are met and there is a double jeopardy violation. 281 Kan. at 496, 133 P.3d 48.