State v. Grossman, 248 P.3d 776

Background

Grossman pled no contest to violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act, a severity level 5 felony, for failing to disclose a new address within 10 days.
District court sentenced him June 27, 2007, to 53 months in prison with 24 months' postrelease supervision and granted a downward dispositional departure placing him on 36 months of probation.
Probation was ordered to run consecutively to time remaining on an earlier parole revocation.
In December 2008 the State sought to clarify the probation start date; the court referenced an off-the-record discussion with a corrections officer about starting probation after the parole revocation rather than double-dipping.
Grossman completed the parole revocation on October 24, 2008; the court then held the instant probation began on that date.
A probation violation hearing occurred April 21, 2009; Grossman admitted to multiple violations and the court revoked probation, ordering service of the underlying 53-month sentence; Grossman appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process at probation revocation	Grossman argues waivers/admissions were not knowingly made.	Court properly treated admissions as waiver of evidentiary hearing and Grossman had opportunity to be heard.	No due process violation; admissions were knowing and voluntary.
Modification and start date of probation	Modification based on off-record conversation; inappropriate start date and extended duration.	Probation modification treated as authorized under K.S.A. 21-4610(b); proper notice and hearing occurred; duration not improperly extended.	No improper modification or due-process violation; start date合法ly determined and duration not unlawfully extended.
Bearden/financial noncompliance and revocation	Need inquiry into indigency before revoking for nonpayment.	Grossman admitted violations beyond nonpayment; Bearden factors not dispositive given additional grounds.	Probation revocation supported by admitted violations and alternative grounds; no Bearden error.
Assignment to community corrections before underlying sentence	District court failed to follow 22-3716(b) requiring CC assignment before imputing underlying sentence.	Exception applies; Grossman had prior CC assignment; court did not need a second such assignment.	No error; the district court did not abuse discretion in revoking probation and imposing the underlying sentence.

Key Cases Cited

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (established due-process requirements for parolees and probationers)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (extended Morrissey due process rights to probationers)
State v. Billings, 30 Kan. App. 2d 236 (Kan. App. 2002) (minimum due-process rights include notice, evidence, counsel)
State v. Rasler, 216 Kan. 292 (Kan. 1975) (probation procedures satisfy due process under K.S.A. 22-3716(b))
State v. Harned, 281 Kan. 1023 (Kan. 2006) (claims raised without authority are waived)
State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262 (Kan. 2008) (litigant cannot invite error and then complain on appeal)
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (due-process considerations for indigent defendants in revocation for nonpayment)
State v. White, 41 Kan. App. 2d 943 (Kan. App. 2009) (Bearden application to probation violations in Kansas)
State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168 (Kan. 2006) (probation revocation standards and discretion)
State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232 (Kan. 2006) (probation revocation framework; statutory considerations)
State v. Woodward, 288 Kan. 297 (Kan. 2009) (limits on modification of probation conditions and duration)
State v. Banning, 34 Kan. App. 2d 783 (Kan. App. 2005) (exceptions to CC assignment before underlying sentence)
City of Kansas City v. Lopp, 269 Kan. 159 (Kan. 2000) (district court loses jurisdiction over a case upon filing motion to docket appeal)
Vorhees v. Baltazar, 283 Kan. 389 (Kan. 2007) (jurisdictional issues may be raised anytime)