State v. Gant, 288 Kan. 76

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Christopher D. Gant’s convictions for felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery, as well as his sentence for attempted aggravated robbery. The court held that Gant’s statements to occupants of his vehicle did not constitute an unambiguous request for counsel during custodial interrogation and that he validly waived his Miranda rights. The court also rejected his claims concerning witness proximity to the prosecution, aggravated sentencing, sufficiency of the evidence, sentencing disparity, and discriminatory prosecution.

Holdings

1. Gant's statement to the occupants of his car that they should call a lawyer was, at most, ambiguous and was not an unambiguous request for counsel to be present during the later custodial interrogation. The district court therefore properly admitted his interview statements.
2. The issue was not properly before the court because Gant made no contemporaneous objection and asserted no specific prejudice. A law-enforcement witness's presence at the prosecutor's table is not per se an abuse of discretion.
3. A sentence within the range stated in a Kansas sentencing-guidelines presumptive grid block does not violate Apprendi or Cunningham merely because the court imposed the high end of that range.
4. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Gant guilty of felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery as an aider and abettor.
5. The district court was not required to account for an accomplice's later plea agreement or sentence when sentencing Gant, and there is no rational basis for comparing the sentences of a defendant convicted of felony murder and an accomplice who pleads guilty to less serious offenses.
6. Gant failed to establish discriminatory prosecution because he presented no evidence that similarly situated persons were generally not prosecuted or that he was intentionally selected for prosecution based on arbitrary or invidious criteria.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Gant unambiguously invoked his Miranda right to counsel before the custodial interview, requiring suppression of his statements.
2. Whether the presence of Detective Bachman at the prosecution table before her testimony constituted reversible error.
3. Whether imposing the high end of the Kansas sentencing-guidelines grid block without jury findings violated the constitutional right to trial by jury.
4. Whether sufficient evidence supported Gant's convictions under an aiding-and-abetting theory.
5. Whether the district court was required to account for an accomplice's later plea agreement and reduced charges when sentencing Gant.
6. Whether the State's failure to offer Gant the same type of plea agreement as an accomplice constituted discriminatory or selective prosecution.

Disposition

affirmed