State v. Russell

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 112,932

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

JAMES E. RUSSELL,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; STEPHEN J. TERNES, judge. Opinion filed October 30,
2015. Affirmed.

Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

Before MALONE, C.J., PIERRON and SCHROEDER, JJ.

Per Curiam: James E. Russell appeals his sentence following his convictions of
indecent liberties with a child and contributing to a child's misconduct. We granted
Russell's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 7.041A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). The State filed a response and requested that
the district court's judgment be affirmed.

On October 6, 2014, Russell pled guilty to indecent liberties with a child and
contributing to a child's misconduct based on allegations that he smoked
methamphetamine with a 14-year-old and fondled her. On November 20, 2014, the
district court imposed a controlling sentence of 32 months' imprisonment with lifetime
postrelease supervision. Russell timely appealed his sentence.
2

On appeal, Russell contends that his sentence of lifetime postrelease supervision
"violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 9 of the Kansas
Constitution Bill of Rights." However, Russell acknowledges that he did not raise this
issue in the district court. He further acknowledges that a claim of cruel and/or unusual
punishment will not be reviewed for the first time on appeal.

Russell's sentence of lifetime postrelease supervision for his conviction of indecent
liberties with a child was required by K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3717(d)(1)(G) and (d)(5)(B).
Moreover, pursuant to State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55, 67-68, 260 P.3d 86 (2011), an
appellate court will not review an issue of cruel and unusual punishment for the first time
on appeal, where the defendant failed to sufficiently raise the issue in the district court to
allow an adequate development of the record. As acknowledged by Russell in his motion,
this court will not consider the constitutional challenge to his sentence for the first time
on appeal.

Affirmed.