Appellate court should not make criminal history findings

Michelle A. Davis won in State v. Rankin, No. 122,818 (Kan. App. April 30, 2021), obtaining a remand for determination of whether a prior crime was a person felony. On appeal, Mr. Rankin sought to challenge a prior juvenile adjudication used in his criminal history calculation score under Boettger. In response, the state sought to prove that the prior adjudication was for intentional criminal threat asking the appellate court to take judicial notice of the complaint from the juvenile case. The COA acknowledged that it could take judicial notice of the district court document, but still held that it should not make a criminal history finding on appeal:

Here, the State is asking this court to make factual findings beyond what is necessary to resolve a mootness issue. Although this court can take judicial notice of the original complaint . . .  we observe that this evidence alone does not necessarily resolve whether Rankin's juvenile adjudication for terroristic threat was based on the intentional or reckless version of the statute; the original complaint may have been amended later in the proceedings. Rankin should receive a full hearing in district court to resolve the issue. At such a hearing the district court should consider all available records in [the juvenile case] including the original and any amended charging documents, any plea agreements, transcripts of plea colloquies, findings of fact and conclusions of law from a bench trial, and the journal entry of adjudication.