State v. Hall
298 Kan. 978
Kan.2014Background
- Anthony Hall pleaded guilty to attempted rape, attempted second-degree murder, and aiding a felon as part of consolidated plea agreements arising from violent incidents in 2006.
- At the December 19, 2008 sentencing hearing the judge imposed prison terms and expressly left restitution open for 30 days; Hall was told he had 10 days to appeal and filed a notice of appeal within that period.
- Eight days after Hall’s notice of appeal the State moved for a restitution hearing; on March 10, 2009 the court held a second open-court hearing with Hall present and set restitution at over $32,000, including $469 for the attempted-rape victim’s relocation expenses.
- Hall appealed the restitution order arguing (1) the district court lost subject-matter jurisdiction to set restitution after the sentencing pronouncement and after Hall’s premature notice of appeal, and (2) the relocation expenses were not caused by his crime and thus not allowable under K.S.A. 21-4603d(b)(1).
- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review to resolve the jurisdiction question and the restitution causation issue (Hall preserved an Apprendi/Ivory challenge to use of criminal history for federal review).
Issues
| Issue | Hall's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to set restitution after sentencing and after Hall filed a notice of appeal | Sentence was final when pronounced; court lost jurisdiction to modify sentence and setting restitution later unlawfully altered sentence | Cooper and other precedent permit sentencing court discretion to set restitution amount later or to continue sentencing for restitution | Court rejected Cooper's broad reading; ruled restitution is part of sentence and amount must be set with the defendant present in open court, but sentencing may be continued/bifurcated if done expressly; here jurisdiction existed because the second hearing was an open-court completion of sentencing and Hall was present (notice of appeal filed earlier became effective on final judgment) |
| Whether the $469 relocation expenses were permissible restitution under K.S.A. 21-4603d(b)(1) | Relocation was not caused by Hall’s crime and thus not recoverable as restitution | Statute authorizes restitution for damage or loss caused by the crime; substantial evidence can support causation; district court found law enforcement advised relocation for safety | Court held substantial competent evidence supported causal link between the attempted-rape and victim’s modest relocation costs; award was proper under K.S.A. 21-4603d(b)(1) |
| Whether use of Hall’s criminal history at sentencing violated Apprendi (preserved for federal review) | Use of prior convictions to enhance sentencing range violated Apprendi without jury finding beyond reasonable doubt | Kansas precedent (Ivory) allows use of criminal history for sentencing | Court affirmed prior holdings (Ivory) and found the claim meritless (issue preserved only for federal review) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cooper, 267 Kan. 15 (1999) (prior Kansas decision permitting a sentencing court to order restitution later when restitution was timely ordered at sentencing)
- State v. Anthony, 274 Kan. 998 (2002) (reiterating general rule that a court may not alter a sentence after pronouncement)
- State v. Trostle, 41 Kan. App. 2d 98 (2009) (Court of Appeals discussion of post‑pronouncement sentence alteration)
- State v. McDaniel, 292 Kan. 443 (2011) (held a sentencing hearing continued by agreement completes sentencing at the continued hearing; restitution is part of sentence)
- State v. Hand, 297 Kan. 734 (2013) (standards of review and causation analysis for restitution awards)
- State v. Goeller, 276 Kan. 578 (2003) (substantial competent evidence standard for causal link between crime and victim loss)
- State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (2002) (Kansas precedent allowing use of criminal history in sentencing despite Apprendi challenge)