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.
Amendment. We have no reason to assume such a variance and have no need to do so in<br />
addressing any of the parties' assertions. We, therefore, follow the lead of Scott and treat<br />
the two provisions as substantively equivalent.<br />
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND NATURE OF PROCTOR'S CHALLENGE<br />
In reviewing the issue presented, we owe deference to the district court's factual<br />
findings to the extent they are based on credibility determinations or the reconciliation of<br />
other conflicting evidence. This is not such a case. There were no material factual<br />
disputes presented to the district court, and no appellate argument rests on some<br />
discrepancy in the facts. This court must consider the undisputed facts and the sentencing<br />
statutes in light of the provisions in the <strong>Kansas</strong> and United <strong>State</strong>s Constitutions<br />
prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments to determine if <strong>Proctor</strong> faces a sanction<br />
violating those protections. That presents a question of law over which appellate courts<br />
exercise unconstrained review. <strong>State</strong> v. Allen, 283 Kan. 372, 374, 153 P.3d 488 (2007).<br />
An appellate court must presume a statute to be constitutional and should reasonably<br />
construe its language in a way upholding its constitutionality if at all possible. <strong>State</strong> v.<br />
Laturner, 289 Kan. 727, 735, 218 P.3d 23 (2009).<br />
Constitutional challenges to penal sanctions as cruel and unusual punishment take<br />
one of two forms: categorical or case specific. A categorical challenge submits a type or<br />
category of punishment to be inappropriate in an array of cases based on key<br />
characteristics common to them. Historically, categorical attacks have been directed at<br />
imposition of the death penalty for certain crimes or on certain groups of offenders. See<br />
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 578, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1(2005) (death<br />
penalty unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment for defendants committing crimes<br />
as juveniles, i.e., under the age of 18); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 592, 600, 97 S.<br />
Ct. 2861, 53 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1977) (four justices hold death penalty for the crime of<br />
raping an adult woman violates the Eighth Amendment and are joined in the judgment by<br />
7