¶1concurring: I continue to adhere to the Apprendi analysis expressed by my dissent in State v. Carr, 274 Kan. 442, 53 P.3d 843 (2002). However, I recognize my analysis did not persuade a majority of this court. Carrcontrols Garcia, and our discussion in Garcia requires affirmance of the second issue here.
274 Kan. 718
56 P.3d 803
State v. Beasley
Decided October 25, 2002
Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 2002-10-25
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2007
6 state decisions
Relies on State v. Carr
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2002-10-25
View the full empirical analysis of this case →