State v. Allen
116886
| Kan. Ct. App. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Marcus William Allen was on probation in two separate cases after convictions (2013 forgery; later methamphetamine and marijuana offenses).
- While on probation in the new case he received a 30-day jail sanction; after pleading guilty to the new charges he was placed on probation in that case as well.
- Allen violated probation in both cases; two different judges held separate revocation hearings and each imposed a 60-day county-jail sanction under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(c)(11).
- The second judge ordered the 60-day sanction to run consecutively to the 60-day sanction from the other case (total 120 days); Allen objected citing K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(c)(10).
- The district court overruled the objection, the State did not file a brief on the statutory point, and Allen appealed; by the time of appeal he had already served the time, but the court addressed the issue as one capable of repetition and of public importance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(c)(10) requires that county-jail probation violation sanctions imposed under specified subsections be served concurrently when the defendant is serving multiple probation terms concurrently | Allen: statute plainly requires concurrent imposition of listed sanctions when multiple probations are concurrent | State: statute is ambiguous as to sanctions entered by different judges or in different counties; nothing expressly prohibits consecutive sanctions across separate cases | Court: (reversed) the statute unambiguously requires concurrent imposition when the offender is serving multiple probation terms concurrently, so the two 60-day sanctions must run concurrently |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Quested, 352 P.3d 553 (Kan. 2015) (discusses interplay of sentencing statutes and consecutive sentencing authority)
- State v. Hilton, 286 P.3d 871 (Kan. 2012) (mootness doctrine and exception for issues capable of repetition yet evading review)
- C.M. v. McKee, 398 P.3d 228 (Kan. App. 2017) (procedural treatment of mootness and when appellate courts may decide otherwise)