State v. Haney
323 P.3d 164
Kan.2014Background
- Haney pled nolo to two sex-offense counts with a durational-departure option but no probation; State would dismiss other charges and recommend a specific prison term.
- State recommended consecutive 155 and 61 months; Haney could seek a shorter term but not probation.
- Haney sought funding for a sex offender evaluation via BIDS to support his departure motion; district court denied a continuance.
- Before sentencing, Haney moved to continue to obtain the evaluation; BIDS approved funding, but hearing was not continued.
- Court of Appeals found abuse of discretion in denying the continuance but deemed the denial harmless regarding the departure, and remanded to consider Van Cleave effectiveness issues; Supreme Court granted review.
- Court ultimately vacated Haney’s sentence, remanded for resentencing before a different judge, and ordered that Haney be allowed to obtain a sex offender evaluation for the departure motion; Van Cleave issue became moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying a continuance for the sex-offender evaluation? | Haney | Haney | Yes, abuse of discretion. |
| Are sex offender evaluations appropriate for sentencing, not just probation, and must expert testimony be used? | Haney | Haney | Evaluations are relevant to risk and dispositional decisions; expert testimony required. |
| Was the error harmless under 60-261 after denying the delay? | Haney | State | No; not harmless. |
| Should Van Cleave issues be remanded or are they moot after resentencing before a new judge? | Haney | Haney | Moot; remand for resentencing before a different judge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaman v. State, 295 Kan. 853 (2012) (continuance for good cause on sentencing)
- Cook v. State, 281 Kan. 961 (2006) (discretionary continuance standard in criminal cases)
- Roberts v. State, 293 Kan. 1093 (2012) (abuse of discretion standards in sentencing rulings)
- Girard, In re Care & Treatment of, 296 Kan. 372 (2013) (actuarial risk instruments constitute scientific evidence)
- Hornecker v. State, 977 P.2d 1289 (Wyo. 1999) (sex offender evaluation assists in imposing sentence)
- Randolph v. State, 297 Kan. 320 (2013) (harmless-error analysis under 60-261 not satisfied when wrong factors applied)
- Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117 (1986) (Van Cleave hearing context for ineffective assistance claims)
- Marks v. State, 297 Kan. 131 (2013) (60-261 applicability to departure decisions)