Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hayes

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 30, 2018

State of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Terry Ray Hayes, Appellant.

         SYLLABUS

         Because the 2013 amendments to the sentencing provisions of K.S.A. 21-6620 are procedural in nature and do not change the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date, the retroactive application of those sentencing procedures do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, § 10 of the United States Constitution.

          Appeal from Johnson District Court; James Charles Droege, judge.

          Christina M. Kerls, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant.

          Shawn E. Minihan, assistant district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

          Per Curiam

         A jury convicted Terry Ray Hayes of first-degree premeditated murder, and the sentencing judge imposed the enhanced sentence of life without the possibility of parole for 50 years (hard 50 sentence). On direct appeal, this court affirmed Hayes' murder conviction but vacated the hard 50 sentence because Kansas' statutory scheme for imposing the enhanced sentence violated Hayes' right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Hayes, 299 Kan. 861, 327 P.3d 414 (2014). Upon remand, the district court applied intervening curative legislation, now codified at K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6620, to again impose a hard 50 sentence. Hayes now appeals that new hard 50 sentence, claiming the district court's retroactive application of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6620 violated the prohibition on ex post facto laws. In accord with our recent holdings, we affirm Hayes' hard 50 sentence.

         Factual and Procedural Overview

         In 2011, a jury convicted Terry Hayes of premeditated first-degree murder for the August 5, 2010 shooting death of his estranged wife. At that time, the default sentence for premeditated first-degree murder was life without possibility of parole for 25 years (hard 25). See K.S.A. 21-4706(c); K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 22-3717(b)(1). The sentence could be enhanced to a hard 50 sentence if the sentencing judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one or more aggravating factors existed and that the aggravators were not outweighed by mitigating circumstances. K.S.A. 21-4635.

         Hayes' sentencing judge employed the statutory procedure to impose a hard 50 sentence, after finding Hayes had committed the murder in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner and the aggravated circumstance was not outweighed by any mitigating factors. Hayes appealed that hard 50 sentence.

         While Hayes' first appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). Alleyne held that the facts a sentencing court relies upon to increase an offense's mandatory minimum sentence are elements of that enhanced offense. As such, those sentence-enhancing facts must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt to avoid a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to jury trial. 570 U.S. at 114-15. Subsequently, in State v. Soto, 299 Kan. 102, 124, 322 P.3d 334 (2014), this court held that in light of Alleyne's holding, K.S.A. 21-4635's procedure for imposing a hard 50 sentence violates the Sixth Amendment by permitting a judge to make the fact-finding necessary to impose an increased mandatory minimum sentence, rather than requiring a jury to find the existence of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt.

         In resolving Hayes' initial appeal, this court affirmed Hayes' murder conviction but held that under Alleyne and Soto, Hayes' hard 50 sentence was imposed in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Accordingly, this court vacated the hard 50 sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. Hayes, 299 Kan. at 868.

         On remand, the State gave notice of its intent to pursue a hard 50 sentence again pursuant to the retroactive application provisions of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6620, which the Legislature amended in 2013 to alter the procedure for imposing a hard 50 sentence and bring it in line with the holding in Alleyne. See L. 2013, ch. 1, § 1 (Special Session). The amended statute requires that, before a hard 50 sentence may be imposed, a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one aggravating circumstance exists and that the aggravating circumstance(s) are not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances.

         Hayes filed a motion asking the district court to find that retroactive application of the 2013 amendments to K.S.A. 21-6620 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 10. Following a hearing, the district court denied Hayes' motion. Hayes subsequently waived his right to have a jury make any findings of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and instead tried the hard 50 issue to the district court judge on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.