Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 03-24-2020
Case Style:
STATE OF KANSAS v. CEDRIC YWAIN PETERSON
Case Number: 119314
Judge: PATRICK D. MCANANY
Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Michelle L. Brown, assistant county attorney, and Derek Schmidt,
Defendant's Attorney:
Need help finding a lawyer to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his hard 25 was disproportionate under federal and state constitutional bans on cruel and unusual punishment in Kansas?
Call 918-582-6422. It's Free.
Description:
MoreLaw ReceptionistsVOIP Phone and Virtual Receptionist Services
Call 918-582-6422 Today
In July 2017, Peterson filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his
hard 25 was disproportionate under federal and state constitutional bans on cruel and
unusual punishment. He also argued that the district judge erred by imposing lifetime
postrelease supervision.
The district judge agreed that Peterson should not be subject to lifetime postrelease
supervision and issued a nunc pro tunc order amending Peterson's journal entry of
sentencing. The district judge rejected Peterson's constitutional challenge to the hard 25.
Peterson now appeals to this court, continuing to challenge his hard 25 as a
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 9 of the
Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. He contends that the sentence is "grossly
disproportionate" because he had no previous criminal history and entered a no contest
plea.
This court will not consider the merits of Peterson's constitutional arguments,
because a motion to correct an illegal sentence is an improper vehicle for them. "[T]his
court has repeatedly held a motion to correct an illegal sentence . . . cannot raise claims
that [a] sentence violates a constitutional provision." State v. Donahue, 309 Kan. 265,
267, 434 P.3d 230 (2019); see also State v. Bryant, 310 Kan. 920, 922, 453 P.3d 279
(2019); State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549, 553-54, 343 P.3d 1161 (2015).
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: