State v. Alcala
301 Kan. 832
| Kan. | 2015Background
- Alcala pleaded guilty to first-degree premeditated murder of his wife during a divorce, resulting in a life sentence without parole for 25 years and a no-contact order with the victim’s family.
- State sought restitution for Ashley’s funeral costs and attorney fees Bacon incurred in CINC, adoption, and probate proceedings related to the children.
- District court awarded $43,230.77 restitution and left the rest of the sentence intact, including the no-contact order.
- Alcala challenged the no-contact order as an illegal sentence and contested causation for the attorney-fee restitution.
- The court vacated the no-contact order but affirmed the restitution, finding a causal link between the crime and the CINC/adoption expenses and rejecting unworkability due to incarceration.
- On appeal, Alcala argued the fees were too remote or excessive and that imprisonment rendered restitution unworkable; the State preserved issues by arguing causation and reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the no-contact order an illegal sentence when combined with imprisonment? | Alcala contends it cannot be imposed with a prison sentence. | State concedes error; order must be vacated. | No-contact order vacated; remainder of sentence remains. |
| Whether attorney fees in the CINC and adoption cases are damages caused by the crime under 21-6604(b)(1) | Fees are causally tied to the murder as part of custody proceedings. | Fees are overly tangential and not properly caused by the crime. | Substantial competent evidence supports causation; fees affirmed. |
| Whether restitution plan was unworkable given Alcala's incarceration | Incarceration makes paying restitution unworkable. | Imprisonment alone does not prove unworkability; burden on Alcala. | Restitution plan not unworkable; burden not met; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bowen, 299 Kan. 339 (2014) (no-contact plus life sentence improper; vacate no-contact order)
- State v. Plotner, 290 Kan. 774 (2010) (no-contact order separate from sentence; remedy is vacatur with rest of sentence intact)
- State v. Post, 279 Kan. 664 (2005) (no-contact order inappropriate with prison term; remedy consistent)
- State v. Goeller, 276 Kan. 578 (2003) (causation standard for restitution; substantial evidence required)
- State v. Beechum, 251 Kan. 194 (1992) (tangential costs may be restitution; not all tangential costs are unreasonable)
- State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978 (2014) (restitution causation analysis; direct vs. tangential losses)