State v. Proctor - Kansas Judicial Branch

But the demands of K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 75-5217(c) are unyielding. Proctor would
have to go to prison for the rest of his life without any possibility of early release, save
for executive clemency or a change in the law. Assuming a normal life expectancy,
Proctor would spend almost 50 years behind bars with no meaningful chance of returning
to freedom.
We might vary the facts some. Suppose Proctor served the 44 months and had no
more brushes with the law for 20 years. In his late 40's, he knowingly writes an
insufficient funds check for $1,000 to a medical provider to clear up an arrearage so that
he could receive immediate care for a family member. Proctor's conduct would amount to
a severity level 9 nonperson felony. See K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5821(b)(2)(A). Although
Proctor would be in line for probation on the bad check charge, the violation of his
postrelease supervision would mandate his return to prison for the rest of his life—
conservatively, some 25 to 30 years.
A scenario of that sort, grounded in realistic possibilities, presents a legitimate
forensic tool for evaluating the constitutionality of lifetime postrelease supervision
coupled with mandatory incarceration for life for anyone committing a felony while on
supervision. We, therefore, use that general model to complete our analysis in this case.
Our approach does not conflict with the presumption of constitutionality that attaches to
duly enacted legislation. The presumption applies in two ways. First, the party
challenging the statute must present evidence demonstrating the constitutional defect.
That is, the party attacking the statute bears the burden of proof. As we have outlined, we
believe Proctor has come forward with evidence to the extent possible. Second, a
reviewing court generally should interpret the statutory language in a way favoring
constitutionality, including giving a "narrow" reading to operative words to avoid a
finding of unconstitutionality. But a court may not rewrite a statute in the guise of
rendering a constitutional interpretation. Here, the relevant language in K.S.A. 2009
14