State v. Martin

544 P.3d 820

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Miles Loren MARTIN, Appellant.

No. 124,607

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Oral Argument Held November 14, 2023.

Opinion Filed March 15, 2024.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights prohibit a court from imposing multiple punishments under different statutes for the same conduct in the same proceeding when the Legislature did not intend multiple punishments.

2. When a defendant brings a double jeopardy challenge based on multiple punishments imposed in one case, courts conduct a two-part test to determine whether the convictions giving rise to those punishments are for the same offense. First, courts consider whether the convictions arose from unitary conduct. Second, courts consider whether by statutory definition there are two crimes or only one. In cases involving convictions under different statutes, this second part of the analysis requires courts to apply what has been called the "same-elements test." Under that test, courts consider if each statute requires proof of an element not necessary to prove the other offense.

3. In K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b), the Kansas Legislature has identified a specific circumstance in which it did not intend multiple punishments. Under the statute, a defendant cannot be convicted of (and thus punished for) both the crime charged and a lesser included crime arising from the same conduct in the same prosecution.

4. To be a lesser included crime under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b)(2), a crime must be a "lesser" crime than the crime charged—meaning it carries a lesser penalty. And that "lesser" crime must also be "included" in the crime charged—meaning all elements of the lesser crime must be identical to some elements of the crime charged.

5. Possession of methamphetamine is not a lesser included crime of no drug-tax stamp under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b)(2) because the former carries a greater penalty than the latter.

6. The crime of failing to affix a drug-tax stamp is not a lesser included crime of possession of methamphetamine under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b)(2) because not all elements of the former are identical to some elements of the latter.

7. Under a Fifth Amendment double jeopardy analysis, the same-elements test is a rule of statutory construction, and the rule should not be controlling where there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent. In determining whether there is contrary legislative intent, courts consider factors such as the language, structure, and legislative history of the statutes as well as the social evil each statute seeks to address.

8. Based on the targeted conduct and objectives of the statutory offenses of possession of methamphetamine and failure to affix a drug-tax stamp, as well as the language and structure of the relevant statutes, the Legislature intended to impose multiple punishments under the different statutes.

9. A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights unless the search falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Those recognized exceptions are: consent; search incident to a lawful arrest; stop and frisk; probable cause plus exigent circumstances; the emergency doctrine; inventory searches; plain view or feel; and administrative searches of closely regulated businesses.

10. Incident to a lawful arrest, an arresting officer may search the arrestee’s person and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, including personal property immediately associated with the person of the arrestee.

11. A warrantless search preceding an arrest is a valid search incident to arrest if (1) a legitimate basis for the arrest existed before the search, and (2) the arrest followed shortly after the search.

12. When reviewing a district court’s ruling denying a pretrial motion to suppress, an appellate court may consider both the evidence presented at the suppression hearing and the evidence adduced at trial.

Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed March 17, 2023. Appeal from Geary District Court; Courtney D. Boehm and Ryan W. Rosauer, judges.

Patrick H. Dunn, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause, and Bryan W. Cox, of the same office, was on the brief for appellant.

Kristafer Ailslieger, deputy solicitor general, argued the cause, and Tony Cruz, assistant county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Wall, J.:

This appeal raises two constitutional challenges: one implicating the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions and the other implicating the government’s search and seizure authority under the Fourth Amendment.

The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions protect our citizens from twice being placed in jeopardy of losing their liberty for the same offense. Among other applications, these constitutional safeguards can protect a citizen from multiple punishments under different statutes for the same conduct, unless the Legislature intended to impose multiple punishments under the circumstances. We often refer to this application of the Double Jeopardy Clause as a "multiplicity" challenge.

The Legislature enacted K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109 to identify some situations in which it does not intend to impose multiple punishments for the same conduct. Most relevant to this appeal, the statute provides that a defendant cannot be convicted of (and thus punished for) both a charged crime and a lesser included crime. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 2l-5109(b). The statute defines a. "lesser included crime" to include "a crime where all elements of the lesser crime are identical to some of the elements of the crime charged." (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b)(2).

Miles Loren Martin was convicted of two offenses—possession of methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance with no drug-tax stamp—after a police officer found him in possession of 17.51 grams of methamphetamine during a traffic stop. Martin argues his convictions violate K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b)(2), thus placing him in double jeopardy, because all elements of possession of methamphetamine are the same as some elements of no drug-tax stamp.

However, to be a lesser included crime under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b)(2), a crime must be a "lesser" crime than the crime charged—meaning it carries a lesser penalty. And that "lesser" crime must also be "included" in the crime charged—meaning all elements of the lesser crime must be identical to some elements of the crime charged. Martin’s convictions do not violate. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b)(2) because possession of methamphetamine (the alleged lesser crime) carries a greater penalty than the offense of no drug-tax stamp (the charged crime).

This does not completely resolve Martin’s double-jeopardy challenge—it simply means the Legislature did not prohibit multiple punishments under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b)(2). We must also examine the statutory offenses of possession of methamphetamine and possession of a controlled substance without a drug-tax stamp to determine whether the Legislature intended to punish Martin for both crimes. We conclude that the language and structure of the relevant statutes, as well as their targeted conduct, show the Legislature intended to impose multiple punishments. Thus, Martin’s convictions and sentences do not violate double, jeopardy.

Martin also challenges the lawfulness of the warrantless search that led to the discovery of methamphetamine. The officer found the methamphetamine in a pill bottle Martin had been carrying in his pocket, but she conducted that search before his arrest. Nevertheless, the search falls within the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement because the officer had a legitimate basis to arrest Martin before the search and his arrest followed soon after the search. In reaching this conclusion, we also hold that an appellate court may consider both evidence presented at a suppression hearing and evidence adduced at trial when reviewing a district court’s order denying a pretrial motion to suppress. Finally, we conclude that the search of the pill bottle did not exceed the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest as delineated by United States Supreme Court precedent. We thus affirm Martin’s convictions and sentence.

Facts and Procedural Background

After stopping Martin for a defective tag light, Detective Cayla Da Giau caught sight of an open container of alcohol in the backseat of Martin’s car. Da Giau asked Martin to get out of the car so she could search it. She found several open containers of alcohol, a straw with white residue on it, and a butane lighter.

Detective Da Giau then overheard Martin complaining to a backup officer about the heat. Da Giau offered to let Martin sit in her air-conditioned patrol car. But before placing Martin in the car, she asked if he had anything on him. He handed her a pill bottle. After getting Martin comfortable, Da Giau opened the bottle and found 17.51 grams of methamphetamine.

The State charged Martin with possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school zone and possession of a controlled substance with no drug-tax stamp. Before trial, Martin moved to suppress the methamphetamine found in the pill bottle, but the district court denied his motion.

A jury convicted Martin of possession of methamphetamine as a lesser included offense of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school zone. The jury also convicted Martin of possession of methamphetamine without a drug-tax stamp. The district court sentenced Martin to 20...