Court Opinion

ID: 9782030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 17:50:51.806809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:44.632604
License: Public Domain

Paddock, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent.
This case is similar to State v. Allen, 30 Kan. App. 2d 774, 48 P.3d 678 (2002). As in the instant case, the conviction in Allen came after a guilty plea to indecent liberties with a child. Allen received a prison sentence to be followed by an extended postrelease supervision period of 60 months. On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court and distinguished the case from State v. Cody, 272 Kan. 564, 35 P.3d 800 (2001). In Cody, the trial court’s upward durational departure sentence was based on a finding that Cody was involved in major drug activity. The finding was inferred from Cody’s guilty plea to multiple drug-related crimes. The Supreme Court remanded for resentencing on the ground that the sentencing factors used to increase Cody’s sentence were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the guilty plea to drug-related crimes was not an admission that Cody was involved in major drug activity.
In Allen, as in the instant case, no inferences were necessaiy to support the extended postrelease supervision period. The guilty plea to indecent liberties supported the conviction for that crime. “A plea of guilty entered by a defendant is an admission of the highest order of his participation in the criminal act or acts charged.” Miller v. State, 200 Kan. 700, 706, 438 P.2d 87 (1968). A conviction of aggravated indecent liberties is by statutory defi*1107nition a conviction of a sexually violent and sexually motivated crime. As Judge Pierron pointed out in Allen: “Once the statutory nature of the crime is determined, the provisions of K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 22-3717(d)(l)(D)(i) can be applied. There is no need for any evidentiary fact finding by the court, which is prohibited by Ap~ prendi and Gould.” 30 Kan. App. 2d at 777.
I agree and would affirm the trial court.