categorical proportionality challenge in Kansas

2022On appeal, a party "must present an argument and support that argument with pertinent authority or show why the argument 7 is sound despite a lack of supporting authority or in the face of contrary authority." Gomez, 290 Kan. at 866 .

2015Gomez, 290 Kan. at 866 .

2018Standard of Review/Types of Categorical Challenges "A categorical proportionality challenge under the Eighth Amendment implicates questions of law, and this court has unlimited review." State v. Dull , 302 Kan. 32 , 40, 351 P.3d 641 (2015).

2018Standard of Review/Types of Categorical Challenges "A categorical proportionality challenge under the Eighth Amendment implicates questions of law, and this court has unlimited review." State v. Dull , 302 Kan. 32 , 40, 351 P.3d 641 (2015).

2014This court jumped to the second prong in Ruggles after holding that to be successful a defendant “must satisfy the second prong of the categorical proportionality analysis, i.e., he or she must show that, based on the characteristics of the class of offender he or she belongs to and the nature of the offense at issue, the sentencing practice is disproportionate with the offender’s culpability.” 297 Kan. 675 , Syl. ¶ 4; see also Graham, 560 U.S. at 67 (“‘Community consensus, while “entitled to great weight,” is not itself determinative of whether a punishment is cruel and unusual.’ ”).

2014There is a two-prong test when a defendant raises a categorical proportionality challenge to a term-of-years sentence: “ ‘The Court first considers “objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice” to determine whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue. [Citation omitted.] Next, guided by “die standards elaborated by controlling precedents and by the Court’s own understanding and interpretation of the Eightii Amendment’s text, histoiy, meaning, and purpose,” [citation omitted], die Court must determine in

2012See State v. Mossman, 294 Kan. 901 , 281 P.3d 153 (2012) (applying Graham to a categorical proportionality challenge arguing that lifetime postrelease supervision for aggravated indecent liberties with a child conviction constituted cruel and unusual punishment); State v. Cameron, 294 Kan. 884 , 281 P.3d 143 (2012) (same); State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 , 280 P.3d 203 (2012).

2012See State v. Mossman, 294 Kan. 901 , 281 P.3d 153 (2012) (applying Graham to a categorical proportionality challenge arguing that lifetime postrelease supervision for aggravated indecent liberties with a child conviction constituted cruel and unusual punishment); State v. Cameron, 294 Kan. 884 , 281 P.3d 143 (2012) (same); State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 , 280 P.3d 203 (2012).

2016State v. Dull, 302 Kan. 32, 40 , 351 P.3d 641 (2015), cert. denied 577 U.S. _ , 136 S. Ct. 1364 (2016).

2015Reed’s appeal falls under a categorical proportionality challenge because the district court was not called upon to determine factual findings pursuant to State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 367 , 574 P.2d 950 (1978) (establishing the three-part test used to determine whether sentence is prohibited under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights). “[A] categorical proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment does not require a review of the district court’s factual findings.

2015Reed’s appeal falls under a categorical proportionality challenge because the district court was not called upon to determine factual findings pursuant to State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 367 , 574 P.2d 950 (1978) (establishing the three-part test used to determine whether sentence is prohibited under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights). “[A] categorical proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment does not require a review of the district court’s factual findings.

2014State v. Ruggles, 297 Kan. 675 , Syl. ¶ 1, 304 P.3d 338 (2013); State v. Cervantes-Puentes, 297 Kan. 560, 565-66 , 303 P.3d 258 (2012).

2014State v. Ruggles, 297 Kan. 675 , Syl. ¶ 1, 304 P.3d 338 (2013); State v. Cervantes-Puentes, 297 Kan. 560, 565-66 , 303 P.3d 258 (2012).

2012Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Williams, 636 F.3d 1229, 1234 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 188 (2011), applied Graham to a categorical proportionality challenge to lifetime supervised release.

2012Since Graham , however, the United States Supreme Court has used the categorical proportionality analysis to find that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for offenders who committed homicide crimes as juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. _ , 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2460 , 183 L.

2012Since Graham , however, the United States Supreme Court has used the categorical proportionality analysis to find that mandatory life imprisonment without parole for offenders who committed homicide crimes as juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. _ , 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2460 , 183 L.

2012See State v. Mossman, 294 Kan. 901 , 281 P.3d 153 (2012) (applying Graham to a categorical proportionality challenge arguing that lifetime postrelease supervision for aggravated indecent liberties with a child conviction constituted cruel and unusual punishment); State v. Cameron, 294 Kan. 884 , 281 P.3d 143 (2012) (same); State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 , 280 P.3d 203 (2012).

2012See State v. Mossman, 294 Kan. 901 , 281 P.3d 153 (2012) (applying Graham to a categorical proportionality challenge arguing that lifetime postrelease supervision for aggravated indecent liberties with a child conviction constituted cruel and unusual punishment); State v. Cameron, 294 Kan. 884 , 281 P.3d 143 (2012) (same); State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 , 280 P.3d 203 (2012).

2012Roper, supra, at 572 , 125 S. Ct. 1183 .