State v. Douglas, 279 P.3d 133

Douglas pled guilty in 1991 to indecent liberties with a child and received an indeterminate 5–20 year term.
The plea and journal entry ordered Douglas to pay court costs; the journal entry did not specify the cost amount.
In 1992 the conviction and sentence were affirmed; the issue of costs was not raised on direct appeal.
In 2010 Douglas moved to dismiss costs, arguing improper collection due to lack of an itemized cost statement and potentially expired collection under 3-year limitations.
The State argued costs could be collected as civil judgments; the trial court denied Douglas’s motion; the issue became whether statutes on itemization, limitations, and dormancy apply to criminal court costs.
The appellate court reverses and remands to determine if the costs have become dormant/unenforceable under 60-2403(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 22-3803’s itemization requirement is mandatory or directory	Douglas argues lack of itemization bars collection.	Douglas contends noncompliance voids collection; State argues costs are enforceable regardless.	22-3803 is directory; failure to provide a statement does not bar collection.
Whether 60-512 applies to the collection of court costs	Collection was time-barred after 19 years under 60-512.	60-512 does not apply; costs are civil judgments enforceable regardless of time.	60-512 does not apply to collection of court costs in a criminal case.
Whether dormancy under 60-2403(a) can extinguish collection of court costs	Dormancy should extinguish a dormant judgment after 5 years without enforcement and renewal.	Dormancy applies; the court costs may remain enforceable absent dormancy findings.	Dormancy can extinguish criminal court costs; remand to determine if dormancy applies.
Whether the imposition of court costs is subject to waiver principles	No waiver is involved; costs are statutory obligations.	Waiver arguments were not properly raised; costs are mandatory.	Imposition of court costs is mandatory; lack of waiver is not dispositive.
Whether the case should be remanded to determine dormancy status	Dormancy analysis should be determined on remand.	Court should determine on remand whether the judgment is dormant.	Remand to determine if the costs judgment has become dormant and unenforceable.

Raschke v. State, 289 Kan. 911 (2009) (directory vs mandatory shall; factors for interpretation)
State v. Phillips, 289 Kan. 28 (2009) (costs notification may be through journal entry; directory nature)
State v. Morrison, 28 Kan. App. 2d 249 (2000) (dormancy for restitution judgments; revival requirements)
State v. Robards, 31 Kan. App. 2d 1138 (2003) (dormancy for restitution; timing tied to conditional release)
State v. DeHerrera, 251 Kan. 143 (1992) (court costs must be paid; costs are civil judgment enforceable)
State v. Higgins, 240 Kan. 756 (1987) (enforceability of judgments for court costs; civil judgment framework)
Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp., 293 Kan. 633 (2011) (dormancy and revivor; strict compliance with dormancy rules)
Long v. Brooks, 6 Kan. App. 2d 963 (1981) (explanation of dormancy extension and revival mechanics)
State v. Puckett, 230 Kan. 596 (1982) (procedural fairness and appellate consideration standards)