State v. Trollope

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 114,628

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY R. TROLLOPE,
Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Montgomery District Court; JEFFREY D. GOSSARD, judge. Opinion filed July 1,
2016. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

Before MCANANY, P.J., HILL and BRUNS, JJ.

Per Curiam: Anthony R. Trollope appeals his sentence for two counts of
manufacture of methamphetamine. He filed a motion for summary disposition of his
appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 67), which we
granted.

Trollope's guilty pleas were the product of a plea agreement in which the State
agreed (1) to join Trollope's motion for a downward departure to 120 months in prison,
and (2) to not file additional charges arising from its investigation. The court accepted
Trollope's pleas, but before sentencing Trollope advised the court that he wanted to
withdraw his pleas. To induce Trollope not to pursue such a motion, the State offered to
amend the plea agreement by providing that the State would recommend a downward
departure sentence of 108 months rather than the 120 months in the original agreement.
2

Trollope accepted the State's offer and moved for a departure sentence of 108 months,
which the district court granted.

On appeal, Trollope contends the district court erred in sentencing him, but he
provides no supporting argument. Further, he acknowledges that we lack jurisdiction to
review a felony sentence resulting from a plea agreement between the State and a
defendant which the district court has approved on the record. See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-
6820(c)(2); State v. Williams, 37 Kan. App. 2d 404, 407-08, 153 P.3d 566, rev. denied
284 Kan. 951 (2007). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review this issue and must
dismiss it.

Trollope also claims the district court used his criminal history to calculate his
prison term without proving his criminal history to a jury, in violation of his rights as
expressed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435
(2000).

Trollope's Apprendi argument was rejected by the Kansas Supreme Court in State
v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 46-48, 41 P.3d 781 (2002). We must adhere to Kansas Supreme
Court precedent absent some indication that the court is departing from its precedent.
State v. Belone, 51 Kan. App. 2d 179, 211, 343 P.3d 128, rev. denied 302 Kan. __
(September 14, 2015). We see no such indication. Our Supreme Court has consistently
upheld its reasoning in Ivory. See, e.g., State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978, 991, 319 P.3d 506
(2014); State v. Baker, 297 Kan. 482, 485, 301 P.3d 706 (2013). Accordingly, we follow
the holding in Ivory and these later cases.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.