State v. Hoffman
246 P.3d 992
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Hoffman pleaded guilty to indecent liberties with a child (severity level 5) and indecent solicitation of a child (severity level 7); district court suspended 32 months, placed him on 36 months of probation with community corrections, and imposed various costs and fees.
- At sentencing, restitution to the victim’s father was discussed but not ordered; Hoffman was not required to pay restitution.
- In 2005, the State moved to revoke probation; Hoffman stipulated to violations, but the court did not revoke and instead imposed a 60-day jail term as a condition of probation.
- On January 29, 2007, the district court issued an order extending Hoffman's probation by one year, noting unpaid fines, costs, restitution, or sex-offender treatment; the order was hand-delivered by Hoffman's IS Officer, but no hearing occurred.
- In 2007, the State again moved to revoke probation; Hoffman's probation was revoked and reinstated for 36 months with a 60-day jail term on work release.
- In 2009, Hoffman moved to dismiss the probation-revocation petition, arguing the 2007 extension was invalid and the district court lacked jurisdiction because no hearing or finding of necessity occurred; the district court denied, relying on restitution owed to justify the extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court have jurisdiction to revoke Hoffman's probation? | Hoffman | Hoffman | No jurisdiction; extension invalid, 30-day window not satisfied |
| Was the January 2007 extension valid under 21-4611(c)(7) or (c)(8)? | State | Hoffman | Invalid; extension lacked hearing/necessity and restitution owed was not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gordon, 275 Kan. 393 (2003) (restitution owed allows extension under 21-4611(c)(7))
- State v. Freeman, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1027 (2004) (waiver analysis when extension lacks notice of rights)
- State v. McCreary, 32 Kan. App. 2d 814 (2004) (valid waiver only if defendant informed of rights prior to signing)
- State v. Curtis, 42 Kan. App. 2d 132 (2009) (jurisdiction tied to timely revocation proceedings)
- State v. Cisneros, 36 Kan. App. 2d 901 (2006) (probation-revocation jurisdiction limited by timing)
- State v. Walker, 280 Kan. 513 (2005) (interpretation of sentencing statutes is question of law)
- State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200 (2008) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)