Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Luttig

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided January 9, 2009No. 100,290Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKnudson, J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding in Syl. ¶ 4 of the opinion. I would conclude counting Luttig’s prior forgery convictions to determine criminal history does not run afoul of K.S.A 21-4710(d)(11) because the applicable penalty for forgery is 7 to 23 months. See K.S.A. 21-3710 and 21-4704; see also State v. Boley, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1192, 1197-98, 95 P.3d 1022 (2004) (noting that a severity level 1 penalty is the applicable penalty for commission of K.S.A. 65-4159[a]). Consequently, I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for resentencing of Luttig with a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. BoleyCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API