When a person is sentenced for a crime, due process guarantees that the individual’s circumstances will be taken into account when determining whether the sentence is proportionate to the crime. In State v. Dillon, the Kansas Court of Appeals vacated Mr. Dillon’s sentence because it found the district court violated Mr. Dillon’s right to due process. Mr. Dillon pled guilty to violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act. After five years of regular registration and reporting, Mr. Dillon failed to report in a timely manner. As a result, with his criminal history, he faced a presumptive sentence of 114 months in prison. In district court, Mr. Dillon requested a shorter sentence because the presumptive sentence was unfairly severe given the facts of Mr. Dillon’s offense. The district court denied the request and imposed the 114 months sentence. Accordingly, Mr. Dillon appealed this decision.
The Kansas Court of Appeals addressed three questions at issue:
“First, did the district court consider the individual proportionality argument Dillon made in his departure motion? Second, if not, did the district court’s failure to consider Dillon’s individual proportionality argument deny him due process at sentencing? Third, if we answer yes to the first two questions, does the district court’s violation of Dillon’s due-process rights at sentencing provide an exception to the general rule that we have no jurisdiction to consider the appeal of a presumptive sentence?”
After an examination of the record, the court found the district court did not consider Mr. Dillon’s individual circumstances that could warrant a shorter sentence and that this failure was a denial of due process. As a result, the court found it had jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the presumptive sentence.
The court emphasizes that the Kansas law expressly permits a judge to depart from a presumptive sentence if is too harsh and the facts of a case compel a shorter sentence. The district court is “not required to make explicit findings when it denies a departure motion.” However, when the judge explicitly refuses to consider a required sentencing factor or applies incorrect legal standard, the appellate court has jurisdiction to find a violation of due process. There, because the district court “exclude[d] relevant factors from its consideration,” the sentence was improper.
As the Court of Appeals makes clear, even after a plea of guilty, an individual is entitled to due process. In some cases, the question of guilt or innocence is not as important as the potential sentence a person might receive. For experienced trial attorneys knowledgeable in both trial and sentencing, contact Bell Folsom, P.A.