Updated on November 16, 2024
But Did the Jury Know? The Kansas Supreme Court’s Narrow Interpretation of “Proper” Defensive Admissions When Determining Criminal Punishment
State v Nunez, No. 125,141 (Kan. Aug. 30, 2024).
Author: Madi Stapleton, Staff Editor
Issue: Can a sentencing court rely on a defendant’s admission to increase his or her sentence when the facts contained in the admission were never presented to the jury, and the defendant did not waive his or her jury trial right?
Answer: No. Facts that increase the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury or admitted by the defendant. Proper admission must be preceded by a knowing and voluntary waiver of the defendant’s jury trial right.
Facts: In 2023, defendant William Nunez was charged with and convicted of rape. His sentence included lifetime post-release supervision, which is mandated in Kansas for sexually violent crimes when the offender was 18 years or older. Nunez was 32, but the jury never considered or found his age; rather, he “admitted” his age during his sentencing hearing and on various court documents the jury had not seen. Nunez did not waive his jury trial rights with respect to the question of his age. Because of Nunez’s supposed admission of age, the court increased his sentence by adding lifetime post-release supervision, which only applies to defendants over 18.
Discussion: In Nunez, the Kansas Supreme Court crafted a rule applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi to Kansas criminal cases where a defendant’s admission resulted in increased penalties, and the facts of the admission were never presented to the jury.[1] Apprendi requires that facts which increase the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum be submitted to a jury or be admitted by the defendant.[2] The Kansas Supreme Court clarified what a “proper” admission entails under Apprendi without a jury finding: the defendant must not only make the admission, but also waive jury trial rights to the admission. Nunez’s punishment increased based on the fact of his age, which he admitted without a jury finding; however, Nunez never waived his jury trial right with respect to his age. The district court ran afoul of Apprendi by relying on Nunez’s admission for sentencing purposes.
Key Authorities: Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004); Kan. State. Ann. § 22-3717(d)(1)(G)(i) (2024).
[1] Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000).
[2] Id.
