Judges serve as the voice of sentencing in the criminal justice system

Since taking office, I have sought to publicly announce policy decisions and the reasoning behind these decisions. My hope is to help the community better understand how our criminal justice system works and the role of the District Attorney. In discussions with various groups, I’ve found that a common misconception is that the District Attorney’s Office is responsible for imposing sentences.

To be sure, the District Attorney’s Office will recommend sentences upon conviction or as a result of a plea bargaining. However, it is the court, or to be more exact, the judge who ultimately imposes a defendant’s sentence.

Judges are guided by the Kansas sentencing grid, which lays out presumptive felony in terms of months for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1993. Based on the severity of the crime and prior criminal history, the grid sets minimum, standard, and maximum sentencing ranges for drug and nondrug crimes. Its purpose is to help establish fairness by providing uniform and proportional sentencing. Other laws determine sentencing for crimes considered “off grid” such as capital murder and first-degree murder, or “non-grid” such as a felony DUI convictions.

However, even when a conviction falls within the grid, a judge may depart from the guidelines by placing a convicted person on probation rather than prison or in prison rather than probation. A judge also may depart from the grid to shorten or lengthen a recommended term of imprisonment or probation.

Should a judge elect to depart from the grid, the court must make appropriate findings to support its decision and “state on the record at the time of sentencing the substantial and compelling reasons for the departure.” (See K.S.A. 21–6815(a).) Though the lists are nonexclusive, Kansas law provides a range of “mitigating” and “aggravating” factors a court may consider when determining whether a case presents substantial and compelling reasons to depart. (See K.S.A. 21–6815(c)(1)–(2).)

When a judge imposes a departure sentence, the District Attorney or the defendant can appeal the sentence under Kansas statute. The party claiming that the court erroneously departed is limited to arguing: “whether the sentencing court’s findings of fact and reasons justifying a departure: (1) Are supported by the evidence in the record; and (2) constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure.” (See K.S.A. 21–6820(d)(1)–(2).) For example, if a judge imposes probation rather than prison, the prosecution’s basis for appeal would be that the court made unsupported, insubstantial, and uncompelling findings in granting the downward dispositional departure.

From deciding what cases to prosecute to how cases are resolved, the District Attorney’s Office exercises significant discretion. I know the decisions made here have a reverberating impact in our community. In making sentencing recommendations to the judge or deciding to appeal a judge’s sentence, my office wants to ensure that justice is done by holding offenders accountable and reducing the likelihood that an offender will commit more crimes. My responsibility in serving as the representative of the state is to act in the best interest of the public as we strive to build a safe and just community where we can all live, work, and raise our families.