State v. Ayers
309 Kan. 162
| Kan. | 2019Background
- Curtis R. Ayers, indigent, pleaded guilty to capital murder (killing a detective) and multiple related felonies; public defender was appointed.
- At sentencing Ayers received life without parole for capital murder and multiple on-grid terms for other offenses (most ordered consecutive to each other and to the life term).
- Defense requested that Ayers not be required to reimburse Board of Indigents' Defense Services (BIDS); the judge discussed attorney fees briefly and later assessed a $1,000 BIDS fee.
- The district court did not make an on-the-record, explicit finding about Ayers’ financial resources when imposing the BIDS fee.
- Ayers appealed, arguing (1) the BIDS fee was imposed without requisite consideration of his ability to pay and (2) the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive on-grid sentences given the life-without-parole sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly assessed BIDS fees without on-record consideration of defendant's finances | Ayers: the judge failed to explicitly consider Ayers’ financial resources as required by statute and Robinson | State: no additional fact-finding required; procedure here was sufficient | Court: Vacated $1,000 BIDS fee; remanded because Robinson requires explicit on‑record consideration of financial resources |
| Whether ordering on-grid sentences consecutive to a life-without-parole sentence was an abuse of discretion | Ayers: consecutive on-grid terms are unreasonable because life-without-parole makes serving them impossible | State: consecutive sentences are within sentencing discretion and serve purposes beyond incapacitation | Court: Affirmed consecutive sentences; not an abuse of discretion — other sentencing goals (retribution, deterrence) justify consecutive terms |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robinson, 281 Kan. 538 (2006) (sentencing court must explicitly state on the record how defendant's financial resources and payment burden were weighed when imposing BIDS fees)
- State v. Brune, 307 Kan. 370 (2018) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing decisions)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (identifies multiple legitimate goals of sentencing beyond incapacitation)
- State v. Kleypas, 305 Kan. 224 (2016) (upheld imposition of determinate sentences consecutive to a death sentence)
- State v. King, 288 Kan. 333 (2009) (distinguishing BIDS fee statute from restitution statute)
- State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 (2010) (recognizing purposes of sentencing include retribution and deterrence)