State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 117

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed Jerry D. Sellers, Jr.'s convictions for two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The court upheld the denial of a psychological evaluation of the victim and concluded that the convictions were not multiplicitous because the charged touchings were separated by a break and a fresh impulse. The court declined to reach the constitutional challenge to lifetime postrelease supervision because it was not preserved in the district court, and it addressed the trial court's authority to correct the postrelease supervision term.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sellers's motion for a psychological evaluation because he failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the evaluation under the totality of the circumstances.
2. The convictions for touching M.R.C.'s breast and pubic area were not multiplicitous because the two acts did not arise from unitary conduct.
3. The court did not reach Sellers's constitutional challenge to lifetime postrelease supervision because that specific challenge was not preserved in the district court.
4. Lifetime postrelease supervision was illegal because the State failed to prove Sellers's age at the time of the offenses, so Sellers was subject only to the grid form of aggravated indecent liberties and a 36-month postrelease term.
5. The lifetime electronic-monitoring portion of Sellers's sentence had to be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Sellers's motion for a psychological evaluation of M.R.C.
2. Whether the convictions for touching M.R.C.'s breast and pubic area were multiplicitous because they arose from unitary conduct.
3. Whether the constitutional challenge to lifetime postrelease supervision was preserved for appellate review.
4. Whether the district court could impose or correct the postrelease-supervision term after initially pronouncing a 36-month term.
5. Whether lifetime postrelease supervision was authorized when the State did not prove that Sellers was at least 18 years old at the time of the offenses.
6. Whether the district court could impose lifetime electronic monitoring as part of the sentence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded