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.
discount an initial finding of gross disproportionality or as ingredients in an overall<br />
determination of unconstitutionality.<br />
The presumption of constitutionality fails to aid the <strong>State</strong> on lifetime postrelease<br />
supervision. The presumption typically applies as a canon of construction to lend a<br />
reading to statutory language that avoids constitutional issues or defects. Clark v.<br />
Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 380-82, 125 S. Ct. 716, 160 L. Ed. 2d 734 (2005) (As between<br />
"plausible statutory constructions," a court should reject one that "would raise a multitude<br />
of constitutional problems."); St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U.S. 350, 369-70,<br />
35 S. Ct. 99, 59 L. Ed. 265 (1914); Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v.<br />
Farmer, 220 F.3d 127, 135-36 (3d Cir. 2000). A court, for example, may apply a narrow<br />
construction to an otherwise potentially vague statute to supply sufficient specificity to<br />
avert a constitutional deficiency. Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 330-31, 108 S. Ct. 1157,<br />
99 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1998); United <strong>State</strong>s v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir. 2007).<br />
Here, the language of the critical statutes is plain rather than ambiguous or vague. A court<br />
may not construe a statute in a way that is irreconcilable with its words to trowel over a<br />
constitutional defect. Salinas v. United <strong>State</strong>s, 522 U.S. 52, 60, 118 S. Ct. 469, 139 L. Ed.<br />
2d 352 (1997) (court may not engage "disingenuous evasion" in guise of statutory<br />
construction to deflect constitutional challenge); Boos, 485 U.S. at 330-31 (The judicial<br />
construction of the statutory language must be "fairly possible.").<br />
We, therefore, find lifetime postrelease supervision as applied to <strong>Proctor</strong> to be<br />
cruel and unusual punishment violating the Eighth Amendment.<br />
VI. SECTION 9 OF THE KANSAS CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS<br />
The <strong>Kansas</strong> Supreme Court has consistently held that § 9 of the <strong>Kansas</strong><br />
Constitution Bill of Rights permits proportionality challenges to the duration of<br />
incarceration for specific offenses. <strong>State</strong> v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858, 863, 235 P.3d 1203<br />
54