State v. Hoffman
246 P.3d 992
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Hoffman pled guilty to indecent liberties with a child (severity level 5) and indecent solicitation of a child (severity level 7).
- Court imposed and suspended a 32-month controlling sentence, placed Hoffman on probation with 36 months of community corrections, and ordered various costs/fees.
- At sentencing, the court declined restitution for travel expenses despite State's request; no restitution was ordered.
- The State filed a motion to revoke Hoffman's probation in 2005; a hearing occurred, Hoffman stipulated to violations, but probation was continued with a 60-day jail condition.
- In January 2007, the district court issued an order extending Hoffman's probation by one year, delivered to Hoffman, with no hearing or stated necessity findings.
- In August 2007, after another probation-violation hearing, Hoffman's probation was revoked and reinstated for 36 months, with 60 days in jail on work release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the district court have jurisdiction to revoke probation? | Hoffman. | State. | No; district court lacked jurisdiction due to invalid extension. |
| Was the January 2007 probation extension valid without a hearing or judicial finding of necessity? | Hoffman did not validly waive rights; extension invalid. | State contends waiver via signing extended order suffices under McCreary/Freeman. | Invalid; extension lacked required hearing/necessity finding, so Hoffman’s probation expired. |
| Can a waiver in McCreary/Freeman substitute for the statutory requirements in 21-4611(c)(8)? | Hoffman did not knowingly waive rights due to lack of informing language. | State argues waiver valid if defendant consents to extension. | McCreary/Freeman distinguish; here no valid waiver; extension invalid. |
| If extension is invalid, can the State revoke probation after expiration? | N/A | N/A | Jurisdiction did not exist; revocation unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200, 195 P.3d 753 ((2008)) (jurisdiction can be raised any time; lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- State v. Cisneros, 36 Kan. App. 2d 901, 147 P.3d 880 ((2006)) (proceedings must be within 30-day window; lacking, jurisdiction vanishes)
- State v. Curtis, 42 Kan. App. 2d 132, 209 P.3d 753 ((2009)) (extensions require timely proceedings; 30-day rule governs jurisdiction)
- McCreary, 32 Kan. App. 2d 814, 89 P.3d 659 ((2004)) (waiver of right to hearing can validate extension if rights disclosed)
- Freeman, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1027, 93 P.3d 1223 ((2004)) (no waiver when rights not disclosed; extension invalid)
- Gordon, 275 Kan. 393, 66 P.3d 903 ((2003)) (distinguishes between extensions under different subsections)
- Dexter, 276 Kan. 909, 80 P.3d 1125 ((2003)) (restitution and probation interplay; damage-based restitution limits)
- Hunziker, 274 Kan. 655, 56 P.3d 202 ((2002)) (probation-restitution linkage; conditions must match damages caused)
- Walker, 280 Kan. 513, 124 P.3d 39 ((2005)) (statutory interpretation of sentencing statutes; standard of review)