City of Emporia v. Guyer
124005
| Kan. Ct. App. | Apr 1, 2022Background
- March 19, 2019: police responded to a domestic disturbance between Tatum Guyer and her boyfriend; Guyer was arrested for domestic battery.
- The municipal court complaint charged Guyer under the state domestic-battery statute (K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5414(a)).
- Guyer entered a municipal diversion agreement in which she "stipulate[d] to the facts contained in [her] complaint and the police reports," and agreed that future prosecution could proceed on that record if diversion was revoked.
- The City moved to revoke after Guyer failed to complete diversion conditions; Guyer stipulated to the violation and the municipal court found her guilty under the city ordinance (Code § 16-54) based on the stipulated facts.
- Guyer appealed to the district court for a de novo trial; the parties agreed on new stipulated facts, the district court rejected Guyer’s self-defense claim, convicted her of domestic battery, and remanded for sentencing. Guyer appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Municipal-court jurisdiction to convict under a state statute (K.S.A. 12-4104) | Guyer: 12-4104 does not authorize municipal prosecution of state statutes; charging state statute made municipal conviction unauthorized | City: 12-4104 allows municipal jurisdiction where ordinance elements match state statute; court records/filings show charge was amended to Code § 16-54 and Guyer had notice | Court: 12-4104 permits municipal jurisdiction over domestic battery when the offense would be a felony in district court; Guyer failed to show it would not be a felony and gave no criminal-history record, so argument fails |
| Defective charging document (complaint cited state statute instead of city ordinance) | Guyer: complaint was defective and cited different statute/elements, so conviction must be reversed | City: charge was amended in municipal court and other filings cited Code § 16-54; any error was inadvertent/technical and harmless because the ordinance and state statute are identical | Court: Ordinance § 16-54(b) and K.S.A. 21-5414(a) contain identical language; the error was inadvertent/harmless and did not affect substantial rights; conviction affirmed |
| Use of diversion stipulations at de novo trial | Guyer: she should not be bound by prior municipal-court stipulations at de novo district-court trial | City: diversion agreement expressly stated future proceedings could proceed on the record of the stipulated facts; parties also agreed new stipulations before trial | Court: Trial court correctly relied on stipulations; Guyer was bound by her agreement and the agreed facts supported conviction |
| Preservation of alternative/new arguments on appeal | Guyer: raised other statutory-construction arguments in corrected brief | City/Court: permission to file corrected brief was limited; some arguments were abandoned or not adequately briefed | Court: declined to consider newly raised statutory-construction arguments; issues not briefed or inadequately briefed are waived |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 375 P.3d 332 (2016) (charging-document defects implicate statutory error, not subject-matter jurisdiction; reversal required only under limited circumstances)
- State v. Arnett, 307 Kan. 648, 413 P.3d 787 (2018) (issues not briefed are deemed waived and abandoned)
- State v. Collins, 303 Kan. 472, 362 P.3d 1098 (2015) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- State v. Simmons, 307 Kan. 38, 405 P.3d 1190 (2017) (appellant bears burden to designate a record on appeal that supports the claimed error)