State v. Haugland, 122324

In April 2019 Haugland was charged with multiple counts after withdrawing $101,000 from his brother’s account; he pled no contest to felony theft and acknowledged restitution could be ordered.
The bank requested $15,000 in restitution for investigative, regulatory, and reputational costs; the presentence report reflected that request.
At sentencing (Nov. 6, 2019) the district court imposed 31 months’ imprisonment and ordered $15,000 restitution, stating only “The restitution is set at $15,000,” without establishing a payment plan.
Haugland appealed, arguing the restitution order was an illegal sentence because the court failed to set a payment plan under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6604(b).
While the appeal was pending the Legislature amended the restitution statute (effective June 11, 2020) to remove references to a mandatory “plan” and to allow defendants whose orders predated the amendment to file a motion for installment payments before Dec. 31, 2020; the Kansas Supreme Court in State v. Arnett severed subsection (b)(2) as unconstitutional.
Haugland did not file a stay or a motion for installments before the statutory deadline; the Court of Appeals concluded he waived relief under the amended statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution order was an illegal sentence for failing to set a payment plan under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6604(b)	Haugland: statute required the court to establish a payment plan at sentencing (relying on State v. Roberts)	State: statute did not require a payment plan; restitution amount alone is sufficient	Court: Not illegal; 2018 statute did not require a court-established payment plan and Roberts is no longer controlling
Whether the 2020 statutory amendments entitle Haugland to file for installment payments / remand	Haugland: court should remand to allow filing under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6604(b)(3)	State: defendant failed to timely seek stay or file motion before Dec. 31, 2020; relief waived	Court: Haugland waived that remedy by not filing before the deadline; no remand
Whether an illegal-sentence claim may be raised for the first time on appeal	Haugland: raised claim on appeal	State: procedural default argument	Court: Illegal-sentence claims are cognizable anytime; claim properly considered on appeal
Effect of Arnett and other precedent on Roberts and statutory interpretation	Haugland: relied on Roberts that read 2018 statute to require a payment plan	State: Arnett severed (b)(2), Roberts was vacated; other cases support that no plan is required	Court: Arnett and related precedent undermine Roberts; Roberts vacated and its reasoning no longer controls

State v. Arnett, 314 Kan. 183 (2021) (Kansas Supreme Court held parts of the restitution statute violated the Kansas Constitution and severed subsection (b)(2))
State v. Roberts, 57 Kan. App. 2d 836 (2020) (Court of Appeals opinion that had read the statute to require a court-established payment plan; subsequently vacated on review)
State v. Alderson, 299 Kan. 148 (2014) (discussed when restitution becomes due absent a clear order that it is immediately payable)
State v. Alcala, 301 Kan. 832 (2015) (upheld restitution orders that did not specify payment schedule or timing)
State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585 (2019) (illegality-of-sentence analysis controlled by law in effect when the sentence was pronounced)