Double rule applies when separate complaints are consolidated for trial

Reid T. Nelson and Debra J. Wilson won in State v. Dixon, No. 120,587 (Kan. App. May 14, 2021), obtaining a new sentencing hearing in a Sedgwick County prosecution for aggravated kidnapping, rape, and other charges stemming from two consolidated cases. The COA affirmed Mr. Dixon's convictions, but took issue with the sentencing procedure. In this case, two separate cases, each involving multiple charges, were consolidated for trial. At sentencing, the district court set a base sentence of 653 months in the first complaint and additional consecutive sentences from that charging document for a total of 1,157 months. The district court also set a base sentence of 653 months in the second complaint and additional consecutive sentences from that charging document for a total of 888 months. The district court ran the sentences from the two cases consecutively for a total controlling sentence of 2,045 months.

Under K.S.A. 21-6819(b)(4), the "total prison sentence imposed in a case involving multiple convictions arising from multiple counts within an information, complaint or indictment cannot exceed twice the base sentence." This is sometimes know as the "double rule." By its terms, it only applies to multiple convictions arising from a single complaint. Even where cases are consolidated for trial, the statute would purport to result in two base sentences and two applications of the double rule.

Mr. Dixon challenged this construction of the statute as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and the COA agreed:

Dixon's argument that the double rule distinguishes between "arguably indistinguishable" classes has merit. Essentially, both classes of defendants Dixon identifies proceed to one trial on multiple charges that "are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan." But only defendants who have all the crimes brought in one charging document can benefit from applying the double rule to all the convictions together. Defendants who have crimes filed in separate charging documents consolidated for trial cannot benefit from applying the double rule to all the convictions together. The only difference between these two classes of defendants is whether there is one case number or two. 

We find that the double rule treats arguably indistinguishable classes of defendants differently. 

The COA next considered whether such disparity could stand in light of the low "rational basis" test for Equal Protection challenges. The COA noted that, if Mr. Dixon could benefit from the double rule on his entire sentence, his maximum sentence would have been 1,306 months. Instead, because he was charged in two complaints instead of one, he received a sentence of 2,045 months. 

We are mindful that the rational basis test is a very lenient standard and a statute must be enforced as written "if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it." But we are unable to find that the strict application of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819(b)(4) to Dixon's cases implicates any legitimate sentencing goal. As a result, we find that the statute, as applied to Dixon's cases, does not pass rational basis scrutiny. Thus, we conclude that the double rule found in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21- 6819(b)(4), as applied to Dixon's cases, violates his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The COA went on to hold that the proper remedy was to extend the protection of the double rule to all of Mr. Dixon's sentences.

[Update: Mr. Dixon filed a petition for review from the affirmance of his convictions on June 4, 2021.]

[Further update: the state filed a cross-petition for review on July 1, 2021.]

[Further update: the KSC denied both the state and Mr. Dixon's PRs on September 27, 2021.]