Murder conviction overturned based on lack of jurisdiction

Lydia Krebs won in State v. Breedlove, No. 96,608 (Kan. March 28, 2008), vacating a Sedgwick County murder conviction based on lack of jurisdiction. In 1997, the state prosecuted Mr. Breedlove as an adult for felony murder for acts that occurred when Mr. Breedlove was 17 years 9 months old. The prosecution was based on a previous adult certification. But the previous certification was based on acts that occurred after the alleged felony murder. Mr. Breedlove was convicted and his conviction was affirmed in 1999.

In 2006, Mr. Breedlove filed a motion to correct illegal sentence alleging that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the state should not be able to proceed on a certification finding that was itself based on antecedent acts. On appeal, the state intially conceded the lack of jurisdiction. But then Mr. Breedlove argued that, pursuant to statute, the proper remedy was not vacation of the guilt finding, but remand for imposition of a juvenile sanction. Mr. Breedlove has long ago passed the age where the juvenile court would have jurisdiction over him. The state then backtracked on its concession and tried to argue that adult certification does not involve subject-matter jurisdiction, asking the KSC to overturn clearly applicable precedent.

The KSC was not very persuaded by the state's jurisdictional argument and the argument mainly dealt with the remedy issue:

First, the language of 38-1681 is clear. Accordingly, we are not free to read anything into it as Breedlove suggests, e.g., implied or borrowed orders authorizing prosecution as an adult. Subsection (a)(2) speaks only to the situation where the order is reversed, but the finding of guilty is affirmed. In that event, the respondent is deemed adjudicated as a juvenile offender, and essentially the conviction remains affirmed. Here, there simply was no order.

Second, on a related issue, 38-1681(a)(2) and [State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 993 P.2d 1213 (1999)] concerned proper beginnings in the juvenile court, but subsequent failed attempts, through faulty orders, to certify the defendant as an adult to be prosecuted in district court. In short, proper jurisdiction originally existed in, and perhaps never left, juvenile court. Smith implicitly held that the legislature may provide in the specific instances of district court convictions arising out of failed certification orders, if nevertheless affirmed, that the convictions may be held as established in the juvenile court.

By contrast, the instant case carries a concession by the State that there was a complete failure to attempt to commence juvenile proceedings -- just as in [State v. Mayfield, 241 Kan. 555, 738 P.2d 861 (1987)]. As that court stated: "The subject matter of the action was not a criminal prosecution for a felony, but a juvenile proceeding which was never commenced pursuant to the juvenile code." 241 Kan. at 561. As in Mayfield, Breedlove was always considered as an adult in district court for the First Crimes and always prosecuted as one. And under such circumstances, Mayfield reversed the conviction because of the district court's lack of jurisdiction. 241 Kan. at 561. Without even the semblance of commencing juvenile proceedings against Mayfield and Breedlove pursuant to their respective juvenile codes, and with the resultant lack of jurisdiction in the district courts where they were adjudged guilty, we have trouble understanding that either type of court would have jurisdiction to convict them or to otherwise accept affirmed convictions.

The KSC notes that Double Jeopardy does not appear to prevent re-certification and reprosecution in this case. (I wonder if there might be some statute of limitation problems with some of the non-murder offenses though). So, all Lydia gets is a new trial on a ten-year old first-degree murder conviction! I wish I had more "losses" like that!