State v. Proctor - Kansas Judicial Branch
State v. Proctor - Kansas Judicial Branch
State v. Proctor - Kansas Judicial Branch
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Someone with a conviction for felony theft who then commits aggravated indecent<br />
solicitation would face presumptive incarceration for a standard term of 41 months and<br />
would be on lifetime postrelease supervision after serving the time. But that person would<br />
have to commit yet another felony—his or her third—to be returned to prison for life.<br />
Despite escalating from a property crime to a person felony, that defendant would be<br />
substantially more favorably treated than someone committing the same offenses in the<br />
reverse order. That also reflects a constitutionally suspect disconnect between offense and<br />
punishment.<br />
The result cannot be explained because <strong>Proctor</strong>'s initial offense has been classified<br />
as and considered to be sexually violent and, therefore, deserving of stern punishment. If<br />
that were so, the <strong>Kansas</strong> Legislature presumably would have enacted stiffer penalties for<br />
aggravated indecent solicitation to be imposed at the outset rather than as the result of a<br />
condition subsequent triggered by a new felony conviction. Because any felony triggers<br />
revocation of the postrelease supervision and a return to prison for life, the scheme does<br />
not punish a continuing disposition to commit sexually violent offenses but general<br />
criminality. As such, there is no apparent reason for deviating from the usual sentencing<br />
protocols. And, as we have said, the overall criminal history of a defendant convicted of<br />
aggravated indecent solicitation followed sometime later by a nonperson property offense<br />
fails to display the chronic criminality constitutionally necessary for especially harsh<br />
punishment of recidivists.<br />
The <strong>Kansas</strong> Legislature has adopted special sentencing provisions aimed at repeat<br />
sex offenders. K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 21-4704(j); K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 21-4642. Under K.S.A.<br />
2009 Supp. 21-4704(j), a "persistent sex offender," a person with a conviction for a<br />
sexually violent crime who is later convicted of another sexually violent crime, shall<br />
receive a sentence double the maximum otherwise provided for the new offense. That<br />
recidivist statute already applies to <strong>Proctor</strong>, since it requires only conviction rather than<br />
actual incarceration. If <strong>Proctor</strong> were to complete his probation and again commit<br />
41