State v. Jacobs, 263 P.3d 790 (Kan. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Jacobs, 263 P.3d 790 (Kan. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Hildreth (kanctapp, 2021-09-17) · Strongest negative: State v. Wilson (kan, 2012-07-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" State v. Wilson (2×)
Kan. · 2012 · signal: but see · confidence high
See State v. Ballard, 289 Kan. 1000, 1007 , 218 P.3d 432 (2009) (grid sentence after departure from mandatory minimum of Jessica’s Law not a presumptive sentence because crime of conviction still off-grid); State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157, 163 , 194 P.3d 1195 (2008) (hard 25 life sentence under Jessica’s Law does not meet definition of presumptive sentence under K.S.A. 214703[q]); but see State v. Jacobs, 293 Kan. 465 , 263 P.3d 790 (2011) (in context of rejecting appellate jurisdiction over consecutive combination of grid sentence and sentence arrived at after departure from Jessica…
discussed Cited "see" State v. Hildreth (2×)
Kan. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Jacobs, 293 Kan. 465, 466 , 263 P.3d 790 (2011). 2 Next, Hildreth contends that the district court abused its discretion in not imposing a lesser sentence for his misdemeanor convictions.
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Young
Kan. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Jacobs, 293 Kan. at 466 (citing Flores); State v. Bramlett, 273 Kan. 67, 68 , 41 P.3d 796 (2002) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Frecks (2×)
Kan. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
Similarly, in Flores , the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the defendant’s consecutive sentences of fife (for felony murder) and 34 months (for attempted voluntary manslaughter). 268 Kan. at 658, 660 ; see also State v. Jacobs, 293 Kan. 465, 466 , 263 P.3d 790 (2011) (in context of rejecting appellate jurisdiction over consecutive combination of grid sentence and sentence arrived at after departure from Jessica’s Law mandatory minimum, Jessica’s Law sentence described as “presumptive”); State v. Whetstone, No. 104,413, 2012 WL 1253204 (Kan. 2012) (unpublished o…
State of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Alex C. Jacobs, Appellant
104,114.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Oct 21, 2011.
263 P.3d 790
Bryan C. Hitchcock and Carl F.A. Maughan, of Maughan & Maughan LC, of Wichita, were on the brief for appellant., Boyd K Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Ñola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
Beier.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 45%

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beier, J.:

Defendant Alex C. Jacobs argues in this summary calendar case that his sentence under Jessica’s Law, K.S.A. 21-4643, violated both the federal and state constitutions and that the sentencing judge erred by making his sentences consecutive rather than concurrent.

Jacobs pleaded guilty to three offenses: one count of off-grid aggravated indecent liberties, one count of severity level 3 aggravated indecent liberties, and one count of severity level 3 criminal sodomy. In exchange for Jacobs’ plea, the State agreed to join in Jacobs’ motion for departure from Jessica’s Law to the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act grid for the off-grid aggravated indecent liberties conviction.

The sentencing judge “reluctantly” conformed to the parties’ agreement on the departure motion, imposing a 107-month prison[*466] sentence at the high end of the grid range for the off-grid aggravated indecent liberties conviction. The judge also imposed 61 months for each of the severity level 3 convictions. All three sentences were ordered to run consecutive to each other and to Jacobs’ sentence in another case.

Neither of Jacobs’ arguments in this appeal can lead to relief.

The constitutional challenge to Jessica’s Law was not made in the district court and will not be examined and ruled upon for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 117, 131, 253 P.3d 20 (2011); State v. Berriozabal, 291 Kan. 568, Syl. ¶ 14, 243 P.3d 352 (2010); State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, Syl. ¶ 11, 235 P.3d 1203 (2010). In addition, Jacobs cannot challenge any constitutional infirmity that may exist in Jessica’s Law, because he received a departure to the grid from K.S.A. 21-4643’s life sentence with mandatory minimum. See State v. Snow, 282 Kan. 323, 343, 144 P.3d 729 (2006) (“defendant[] ... for whom a statute is constitutionally applied cannot challenge the constitutionality of the statute on the grounds that the statute may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally in circumstances other than those before the court”; such defendant “has no standing”).

We lack jurisdiction to address Jacobs’ second appellate argument that the sentencing judge erred by making his sentences consecutive rather than concurrent. All three sentences were presumptive. See K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(1); State v. Hernandez, 292 Kan. 598, 608, 257 P.3d 767 (2011) (sentence within gridbox presumptive); State v. Huerta, 291 Kan. 831, 833, 247 P.3d 1043 (2011) (same). “The imposition of consecutive presumptive sentences does not constitute a departure subject to appeal.” See State v. Bramlett, 273 Kan. 67, 68, 41 P.3d 796 (2002) (citing State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657, 660, 999 P.2d 919 [2000]). And an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider an argument that imposing consecutive sentences is an abuse of discretion. See Flores, 268 Kan. at 658-60; State v. Thorpe, 36 Kan. App. 2d 475, 478, 141 P.3d 521, rev. denied 282 Kan. 796 (2006).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.