discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. McQuilliams We do not see how the State's failure to reference the persistent sex offender rule in the complaint violated McQuilliams' fundamental rights because "complaints don't—and can't—tell a defendant the specific sentences that may be entered because those can't be determined until the defendant's criminal history is determined." See State v. Tannahill, No. 100,288, 2010 WL 198484, at *1 (Kan.

discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jones Using Tannahill as guidance, we deny Jones' claim. "'No harm will be found from a technical defect in the charging document unless it prejudiced the defendant's ability to prepare a defense, impaired the defendant's ability to plead the conviction in some later proceeding, or limited the defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial.'" Tannahill, 2010 WL 198484, at *2 (citing State v. Edwards, 39 Kan.