Opinion
Nos. 103,659 103,660 103,661.
2011-10-28
STATE of Kansas, Appellee,v.Grant Michael NIXON, Appellant.
Appeal from Montgomery County District Court; Roger L. Gossard, Judge.Matthew J. Edge, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant.David Maslen, assistant county attorney, Larry A. Markle, county attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIUM:
Grant M. Nixon appeals his sentences in three cases in which he pled guilty to four counts. In Case No. 09 CR 229–I, he was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy, and sentenced to a prison term of life with a mandatory minimum of 25 years. In Case No. 09 CR 272–I, he was convicted of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child, and was sentenced to the aggravated 136–month term, to run consecutive to 09 CR 229–I. And in Case No. 09 CR 273–I, he was convicted of electronic solicitation of a child, for which he was sentenced to the aggravated 228–month prison term, and convicted also of sexual exploitation of a child, for which he was sentenced to life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 25 years. This sentence was to run consecutive to the previous two cases, and counts one and two were to run consecutive to each other. Nixon was essentially sentenced to a minimum term of 50 years—the two hard 25 terms, plus 30 years (228 months and 136 months) for a total of approximately 80 years.
Nixon contends his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated when the district court imposed the aggravated sentences in the grid box on some of the convictions without first submitting those factors to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007). He acknowledges this court has previously resolved this issue against him but raises it to preserve for federal review. The State argues this court lacks jurisdiction because the sentences imposed fell within the grid block and are considered presumptive sentences.
We reviewed Nixon's sentences and the arguments made. We determine that the challenged sentences were presumptive and fell within the statutory grid block, precluding our appellate review. See K.S.A. 21–4704(e)(1) (in its discretion, a sentencing court may sentence an offender at any place within the sentencing range); K.S.A. 21–4721(c)(1) (appellate court may not review a presumptive sentence); State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, 842, 190 P.3d 207 (2008) (An appellate court is without jurisdiction to consider a defendant's presumptive sentence, even if it is the longest term in the presumptive grid block for the convictions.).
Affirmed.