Opinion
Nos. 101,717 103,809.
2013-01-18
STATE of Kansas, Appellee/Cross-appellant, v. Ronald GRAHAM, Appellant/Cross-appellee.
Appeal from Geary District Court; Maritza Segarra and Steven L. Hornbaker, Judges. Sam S, Kepfield, of Hutchinson, and David P. Troup, of Weary Davis, L.C., of Junction City, argued the cause and Ryan W. Rosauer, of Weary Davis, L.C., was with them on the briefs for appellant/cross-appellee. Tony Cruz, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Steve Six, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellee/cross-appellant.
Appeal from Geary District Court; Maritza Segarra and Steven L. Hornbaker, Judges.
Sam S, Kepfield, of Hutchinson, and David P. Troup, of Weary Davis, L.C., of Junction City, argued the cause and Ryan W. Rosauer, of Weary Davis, L.C., was with them on the briefs for appellant/cross-appellee. Tony Cruz, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Steve Six, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellee/cross-appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIUM.
In district court case numbers 09CV178 and 09CV180, the district court applied the factors from State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 367, 574 P.2d 950 (1978), and determined that Ronald Graham's sentence was unconstitutional under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The State failed to challenge in district court the adequacy of the findings and conclusions supporting that determination. This court has consistently required parties seeking appellate review to ensure that district courts make adequate findings to enable review of constitutional claims of cruel or unusual punishment. See, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 924–25, 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55, 67, 260 P.3d 86 (2011); State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568, 589–94, 243 P.3d 352 (2010). It was incumbent on the State to ensure that “ ‘the findings and conclusions by the district judge are sufficient to support appellate argument by the filing of a motion invoking the judge's duty under Rule 165 [2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 246–47], if necessary.’ “ Berriozabal, 291 Kan. at 592, quoting State v. Seward, 289 Kan. 715, Syl. ¶ 3, 217 P.3d 443 (2009). Because the findings before us are insufficient to allow review and because the State failed to take the steps necessary to provide a reviewable decision, we affirm the judgment of the district court in the consolidated K.S.A. 60–1507 decision. As a result, Graham's appeal of the decision of the district court relating to the alleged illegal sentence in 86CR717 is moot.