Volume 285 — Kansas Reports

<center> SYLLABUS BY THE COURT</center>1. CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — <italic>Dispositional Departure Sentence</italic> — <italic>Appellate Review.</italic> An appellate court's review of dispositional departure sentences is limited to whether the sentencing court's findings of fact and reasons justifying a departure (1) are supported by the evidence in the record and (2) constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure. K.S.A. <cross_reference>21-4716</cross_reference>(d). 2. SAME — <italic>Sentencing</italic> — <italic>Departure Sentence</italic> — <italic>Sentencing Court's Reasons</italic> <italic>for Departure</italic> — <italic>Appellate Review.</italic> Appellate court analysis of whether a sentencing court's reasons for departure are substantial and compelling consists of two parts: First, are the reasons given valid departure factors; second, are the reasons, as a whole, substantial and compelling reasons for departure in a given case? 3. SAME — <italic>Sentencing</italic> — <italic>Departure Sentence</italic> — <italic>Sentencing Court's Reason for</italic> <italic>Departure</italic> — <italic>Question of Law.</italic> Whether the factors relied upon by the sentencing court constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure is a question of law. 4. SAME — <italic>Sentencing</italic> — <italic>Departure Sentence</italic> — <italic>Aggravating Factors</italic> — <italic>Statutorily Listed Aggravators Cannot Be Used to Bar Unlisted</italic> <italic>Aggravator.</italic> It is an improper application of the statutory counterpart rule articulated in <italic>State v. Favela</italic>, <cross_reference>259 Kan. 215</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>911 P.2d 792</cross_reference> (1996), and <italic>State v. Martin</italic>, <cross_reference>279 Kan. 623</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>112 P.3d 192</cross_reference> (2005), to use a statutorily listed aggravator to bar use of a related but statutorily unlisted aggravator. 5. SAME — <italic>Criminal Discharge of Firearm at Occupied Dwelling</italic> — <italic>Sentencing</italic> — <italic>Departure Sentence</italic> — <italic>Aggravating Factor That Defendant</italic> <italic>Mother Violated Special Fiduciary Relationship and Unique Position of</italic> <italic>Trust She Had with Her 16-year-old Codefendant Son.</italic> Under the facts of this case, a defendant mother violated the special fiduciary relationship and unique position of trust between herself and her codefendant 16-year-old son when she handed him a loaded gun, she urged him to shoot at an occupied house as she drove by, and he complied. 6. SAME — <italic>Sentencing</italic> — <italic>Departure Sentence</italic> — <italic>Aggravating Factor Applied</italic> <italic>That Defendant Mother Violated Special Fiduciary Relationship and</italic> <italic>Unique Position of Trust She Had with Her Codefendant Son.</italic> Under the facts of this case, the violation of a mother's special fiduciary relationship and unique position of trust with her son is a valid departure factor. 7. SAME — <italic>Sentencing</italic> — <italic>Departure Sentence</italic> — <italic>Aggravating Factor Applied</italic> <italic>That Defendant Mother Violated Special Fiduciary Relationship and</italic> <italic>Unique</italic><page_number>Page 736</page_number> <italic>Position of Trust She Had with Her Codefendant Son.</italic> Under the facts of this case, the violation of a defendant mother's special fiduciary relationship and unique position of trust with her codefendant son is a substantial and compelling reason to depart from the presumptive sentence. 8. SAME — <italic>Sentencing</italic> — <italic>Departure Sentence</italic> — <italic>Aggravating Factors</italic> — <italic>Sentencing Court's Consideration of Statutorily Listed Aggravators and</italic> <italic>Unlisted Aggravators</italic> — <italic>Appellate Review.</italic> A sentencing court's use of statutory factors for departure, <italic>i.e.</italic>, those listed in K.S.A. 2005 Supp. <cross_reference>21-4716</cross_reference>, should not be reviewed with great deference, and a sentencing court's use of nonstatutory factors for departure should not be reviewed with stricter scrutiny. Whether departure factors are substantial and compelling is a question of law and should be reviewed de novo.