NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 121,038 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. STEPHANIE ROSE RUMOLD, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Lyon District Court; JEFFRY J. LARSON, judge. Opinion filed August 14, 2020. Affirmed. Heather Cessna and Kasper Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant. Laura L. Miser, assistant county attorney, Marc Goodman, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee. Before POWELL, P.J., GARDNER, J., and WALKER, S.J. PER CURIAM: After Stephanie Rose Rumold waived her right to a jury trial, the district court found her guilty in 2018 of burglary of a dwelling and misdemeanor theft. Because of her prior convictions for aggravated burglary and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, the district court scored Rumold's criminal history score as a B and sentenced her to 29 months in prison. On appeal, Rumold first challenges the voluntariness of her Miranda waiver. Yet under a totality of the circumstances test, we affirm the district court's denial of Rumold's 1 suppression motion. Next, Rumold argues her sentence was illegal because the district court should have classified her Kansas 2010 aggravated burglary conviction as a nonperson felony because that crime is broader than the Kansas 2018 aggravated burglary statute. We disagree, finding the identical-or-narrower rule inapplicable. Finally, Rumold contends the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act's (KSGA) criminal history scheme is unconstitutional under section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. But Rumold fails to show that the protections of section 5 are broader than its federal counterpart and that a common-law rule existed at the time of adopting the Kansas Constitution that would preclude the KSGA's scheme. Factual and Procedural Background The State charged Rumold with burglary of a dwelling and misdemeanor theft, committed August 25, 2018. Before trial, Rumold moved to suppress incriminating statements. Rumold admitted to the arresting officers that she had been inside the burglarized residence and had taken personal property. But she complained to the district court that the officers coerced those statements and obtained them without a valid Miranda warning. The district court held a hearing on the motion. Officer Nathan Rankin was the sole witness, and he presented the video from his body camera. After responding to a report of a burglary, Rankin and his fellow officers believed that a suspect was hiding nearby in a grouping of trees. That suspect turn out to be Rumold. The body camera video showed Rankin and another officer, tasers drawn, yelling at Rumold to come out from the trees and lie on the ground. When she did, several officers helped handcuff her arms behind her back. The other officers then left Rankin alone with Rumold while they searched the trees. Rankin testified that this initial interaction was intense, but the situation deescalated once they secured Rumold. 2 While Rumold sat on the ground, Rankin asked her to identify herself. She replied her name was "Stephanie Gomez," her birthday was December 1, 1991, and she did not have identification. Rankin ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals