State v. Collins
303 Kan. 472
| Kan. | 2015Background
- Defendant Brock E. Collins pleaded guilty to felony domestic battery (upgraded to a person felony based on prior domestic battery convictions).
- Plea agreement: State recommended the statutory minimum 90-day confinement followed by 24 months probation; Collins argued at sentencing that probation was limited to 12 months.
- District court adopted the plea recommendation and imposed 24 months probation, citing Collins' extensive criminal history and need for supervision.
- Collins appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, reading K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6608(c)(6) to cap probation at 60 months for felony domestic battery.
- Kansas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether statutory limits on probation apply to nongrid felonies like felony domestic battery and whether 24 months was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6608(c) limits probation for felony domestic battery | State: statute limits probation only for listed felony severity levels; does not preclude probation for nongrid felonies | Collins: probation must be capped (he argued 12 months) because absence of grid assignment creates ambiguity and lenity favors shorter term | The statute's plain text applies only to listed grid severity levels; it does not set a limit for nongrid felonies, so duration is within the sentencing court's discretion |
| Whether the court must apply a 60-month maximum (or other cap) to nongrid felonies based on subsection (c)(6) | State: (as applied by COA) subsection (c)(6) does not extend limits to nongrid felonies | Collins: (COA view challenged) subsection (c)(6) "in all cases" imposes a cap, so nongrid felonies get the cap | The court rejected extending subsection (c)(6) to crimes outside subsection (c)'s scope; plain language confines (c) to specified grid-level felonies |
| Whether rule of lenity requires favoring 12-month term | Collins: ambiguity should be resolved in his favor, limiting probation to 12 months | State: no statutory ambiguity requiring lenity; plain meaning controls | Court: rule of lenity inapplicable because statute is not ambiguous; both alternatives Collins proposed would contradict plain text |
| Whether 24 months probation was an abuse of discretion | Collins: 24 months exceeded lawful limits / was unreasonable | State/District Court: term chosen because of defendant's criminal history and supervision needs | Court: no abuse of discretion—sentence was within statutory authority and reasonably based on record (supervision need); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lewis, 299 Kan. 828 (2014) (defining an illegal sentence)
- State v. Taylor, 299 Kan. 5 (2014) (illegal-sentence review is de novo)
- State v. Morningstar, 299 Kan. 1236 (2014) (statutory interpretation of sentencing statutes is de novo)
- State v. Williams, 298 Kan. 1075 (2013) (apply statute's plain language to determine legislative intent)
- Whaley v. Sharp, 301 Kan. 192 (2015) (use canons only when statutory language is ambiguous)
- State v. Fisher, 249 Kan. 649 (1991) (within statutory limits, sentence will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion)
- State v. Hobson, 234 Kan. 133 (1983) (trial court discretion in sentencing reviewed for abuse)
- Cipolla v. State, 207 Kan. 822 (1971) (probation conditions are within court's authority)
- State v. Reece, 300 Kan. 650 (2014) (rule of lenity applies only when statute admits two reasonable interpretations)
- State v. Race, 293 Kan. 69 (2012) (standards for judicial-abuse-of-discretion review)