Opinion
No. 111,479.
2014-12-19
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Timothy MENDENHALL, Appellant.
Appeal from Reno District Court; Trish Rose, Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before MALONE, C.J., GREEN and SCHROEDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Timothy W. Mendenhall appeals his sentence following his conviction of sexual exploitation of a child. We granted Mendenhall's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). The State filed a response and raised no objection to the parties proceeding under Rule 7.041A.
Mendenhall pled no contest to one count of sexual exploitation of a child in violation of K.S.A.2011 Supp. 21–5510(a)(2), a severity level 5 person felony, committed on or about November 17, 2011. He also pled no contest to a host of other crimes not challenged on appeal. For the conviction of sexual exploitation of a child, the district court initially sentenced Mendenhall to the standard presumptive sentence of 120 months' imprisonment with 24 months' postrelease supervision. However, on the State's motion to correct illegal sentence, the district court corrected the sentence to include lifetime postrelease supervision. Mendenhall timely appealed his sentence.
In his motion for summary disposition, Mendenhall argues “the district court erred in imposing life-time post-release where there was insufficient evidence that the victim of the sexual exploitation was under 14.” However, K.S.A.2011 Supp. 22–3717(d)(1)(G) provides that persons convicted of a sexually violent crime committed on or after July 1, 2006, and who are released from prison, shall be released to a mandatory period of postrelease supervision for the duration of the person's natural life. Pursuant to K.S.A.2011 Supp. 22–3717(d)(2)(H), a sexually violent crime includes sexual exploitation of a child in violation of K.S.A.2011 Supp. 21–5510. Because Mendenhall received a presumptive sentence for his conviction of sexual exploitation of a child, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the sentence on appeal. See K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6820(c)(1). Mendenhall has waived or abandoned any other issues he may have raised on appeal. See State v. Boleyn, 297 Kan. 610, 633, 303 P.3d 680 (2013) (an issue not briefed by the appellant is deemed waived and abandoned).
Appeal dismissed.