State v. Jamerson
116413
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jun 16, 2017Background
- James Jamerson pled guilty (2001) to second-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy; the court ordered $5,644.85 restitution and imprisonment.
- Jamerson moved to correct his sentence years later; resentenced in Jan 2016 after Krecalc of criminal-history score; the original restitution amount was reimposed.
- Neither the resentencing journal entry nor the restitution order specified that restitution payments must begin while Jamerson remained incarcerated.
- While Jamerson’s resentencing was on appeal, the district court ordered garnishment of Jamerson’s prisoner account and turned collection over to agents/collectors.
- Jamerson appealed the garnishment order; the appellate court considered statutory authority, procedure for enforcing restitution judgments, and prior precedent on when restitution becomes due for prisoners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jamerson) | Defendant's Argument (State/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lost jurisdiction to order garnishment while Jamerson’s resentencing was on appeal | Court lacks jurisdiction over restitution execution during appeal; no criminal-code procedure preserves execution while appeal pending | Restitution is a judgment enforceable like civil judgments; garnishment may proceed under civil procedure | Court: District court retained authority to order garnishment (restitution is a civil-type judgment), but nevertheless erred in this case for other reasons |
| Whether restitution may be collected from a prisoner’s funds while incarcerated absent an unambiguous directive | Restitution should not be collectible while incarcerated unless court expressly orders immediate payment | If court unambiguously intends immediate collection, prisoner funds may be garnished during incarceration | Court: Under Alderson/Holt, collection while incarcerated is permitted only if the court unambiguously declares restitution payable immediately; absent that, it is not due until release |
| Whether the district court followed required procedures before assigning collection to agents or garnishing the inmate account | District court failed to follow statutory prerequisites and procedures (e.g., no payment plan, no 60-day lapse, no victim-initiated collection) | The court relied on authority to enforce restitution as civil judgments and proceeded with garnishment | Court: The statute’s prerequisites matter; here no payment plan or unambiguous immediate-payment directive existed, so procedural prerequisites were not satisfied for immediate collection |
| Whether garnishment of Jamerson’s prisoner account was proper | Garnishment was improper because restitution was not yet due while incarcerated | Garnishment was permissible as enforcement of a restitution judgment | Court: Garnishment order reversed — restitution not enforceable against inmate account until release absent an unambiguous order to the contrary |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Looney, 299 Kan. 903 (discusses jurisdictional review and sentencing appeals)
- State v. Eddy, 299 Kan. 29 (statutory interpretation review is unlimited)
- State v. Alderson, 299 Kan. 148 (district court must unambiguously order restitution payable during incarceration)
- State v. Holt, 305 Kan. 839 (reaffirming Alderson)
- Uhlmann v. Richardson, 48 Kan. App. 2d 1 (garnishment and enforcement of civil money judgments may proceed despite appeal)
Decision: Reversed — district court’s garnishment of Jamerson’s inmate account was improper because the court did not unambiguously order restitution payable during incarceration; restitution becomes due only after release absent such an unambiguous directive.