The COA first held that although a party can appeal the extent of a durational departure, it cannot appeal the "extent" of a dispisitonal departure--there is either a dispositional departure or there is not. And the state in this case admitted that the district court's findings underlying the departure were substantial and compelling.
The state's last point on appeal was that the district court shouldn't have considered some of the psychological evidence as a basis for the dispositional departure. The COA held that the state had failed to reserve this question for appeal:
Here, the State is not appealing from an order dismissing a charging document, from an order arresting judgment, or upon an order granting a new trial. Also, when the district court overruled the State's objection to the admission of the doctors' reports, the State did not reserve the question for appeal. Further, K.S.A. 21-4721(a) does not provide authority for this court to consider the State's second issue on appeal. This statute allows the State to appeal a departure sentence, and the State has appealed Johnson's departure sentence in the first issue of its brief. However, the State provides no authority for this court's jurisdiction to address the second issue on appeal, which is either a complaint that Johnson breached the plea agreement or a complaint that the district court erroneously considered evidence in a sentencing hearing. Without a question reserved by the prosecution, we conclude there is no statutory authority for this court to consider the State's second issue on appeal.
As a result, the COA dismissed the second issue on appeal. It's sort of interesting to consider that, even had the state properly reserved the issue for appeal, would it have mattered to Mr. Johnson? An appeal on a question reserved presupposes that the matter is concluded and that the outcome of the appeal should not affect a defendant.
[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on December 14, 2011.]