State v. Washington

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 114,802

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

LASHEEN EOLA COOKIE WASHINGTON,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Geary District Court; RYAN W. ROSAUER, judge. Opinion filed June 3, 2016.
Affirmed.

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

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, P.J., SCHROEDER, J., and JEFFREY E. GOERING, District Judge,
assigned.

Per Curiam: Lasheen E.C. Washington appeals her sentence. This court granted
Washington's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Kansas
Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 67). Finding no error in her
sentence, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Washington pleaded no contest to one count of theft, a severity level 9 nonperson
felony. Her presentence investigation report indicates Washington had four prior felony
theft convictions and one prior felony burglary conviction. Based on these convictions,
2

Washington was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment pursuant to K.S.A. 2015 Supp.
21-6804(p) which provides for a presumptive prison sentence when a defendant has three
or more prior felony convictions for theft, burglary, or aggravated burglary. It is
undisputed that Washington had three or more prior felony convictions for theft,
burglary, or aggravated burglary.

ANALYSIS

Washington argues the district court violated her rights under Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), when it used her
criminal history score to enhance her sentence without requiring the State to prove her
criminal history to a jury. However, using a defendant's criminal history to calculate the
defendant's sentence does not violate due process under Apprendi. State v. Williams, 299
Kan. 911, 941, 329 P.3d 400 (2014) (reaffirming State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 46-48, 41
P.3d 781 [2002]). Absent some indication the Kansas Supreme Court is departing from
its previous position, the Court of Appeals is duty bound to follow the Supreme Court's
precedent. State v. Belone, 51 Kan. App. 2d 179, 211, 343 P.3d 128, rev. denied 302 Kan.
___ (2015). The district court did not violate Washington's rights.

Affirmed.