After the Kansas Court of appeals overturned the conviction and sentence for a 45-year Hutchinson man for aggravated robbery, the state asked for an review by the Kansas Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Friday agreed with the Court of Appeals. That mean there will be a second trial for Douglas Scott Plummer.

Plummer was arrested in what was thought to be a simple shoplifting case, but the state charged him with aggravated robbery and a Reno County jury found him guilty. He was sentenced to over 19-years in prison.

The Court of appeals last April agreed with the defendants argument that the court erred when they didn’t include a lesser included offense from the aggravated robbery charge to simple robbery or theft. They say a defendant is entitled to have a jury instruction on the law applicable to their theory or defense if there’s evidence to support that theory. The Supreme Court agreed.

Plummer was convicted after he went into Target in Hutchinson and attempted to steal merchandise, and when he attempted to leave was confronted by employees. He then allegedly battered at least one of those employees resulting in the charge being jumped from shoplifting to robbery. The alleged incident occurring at 1529 East 17th in Hutchinson back on March 24, 2008.

He allegedly battered an employee, Tony Schwauber as he attempted to stop him between the two sets of doors at the store, and it then moved outside where a number of employees were allegedly able to knock him down until police arrived.

While the state contended it was aggravated robbery, the defense contends it was shoplifting and that the Target employees over-reacted.

Plummer had served time in prison for robbery in a case going back to 1997 and was paroled back in 2003.

He’s also serving time for criminal deprivation of property, driving while suspended, and flee and elude convictions out of Saline County, and two counts of forgery and aggravated assault convictions out of Sedgwick County.

The case will come back for a new trial, however it will be sometime down the road, because a mandate on the decision still needs to be issued by the high court, and then scheduled by Judge Trish Rose.