State v. Kinder, 112844

James Kinder pled no contest to a severity level 8 person felony; criminal history category I produced a presumptive KSGA sentence of 7–9 months imprisonment plus 18 months probation.
Kinder spent ~360 days in pretrial custody before sentencing; the district court awarded him 360 days jail credit and imposed 9 months imprisonment with 18 months probation and a no-contact condition.
Because his credited confinement exceeded the 9-month maximum, Kinder argued he had already served the confinement portion and the court could not impose probation thereafter.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Kinder's appeal as challenging a presumptive sentence and thus nonreviewable; Kinder petitioned this Court for review.
The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed statutory definitions and precedent and concluded probation cannot be imposed after a defendant has completed the full term of confinement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kinder)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether probation may be imposed after the confinement term has already been fully served	Probation cannot be imposed because Kinder already served his confinement; there is no sentence left to suspend	Probation can still be imposed (or analogized from statutes allowing post-conviction confinement and probation violation sanctions) and the sentence was presumptive and nonreviewable	Court held probation cannot be imposed after the full term of confinement has been completed; probation requires suspension of a sentence that remains to be served
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review because the sentence was presumptive	Kinder contended the issue is not a challenge to presumptive sentencing but to the authority to impose probation after confinement is completed	State argued presumptive sentence is not reviewable on appeal under KSGA	Court held Kinder’s claim is reviewable because it challenges imposition of probation after the sentence was already served, not the presumptive grid calculation
Whether remand to impose postrelease supervision is appropriate	Kinder indicated postrelease supervision may be required but the probation was unlawful	State asked the Court to vacate probation and remand to impose postrelease supervision per statute	Court declined remand as pointless because the postrelease supervision period had already expired; focused on declaring probation improper

State v. Warren, 297 Kan. 881 (acknowledging exceptions to nonreviewability of presumptive sentences)
State v. Bee, 288 Kan. 733 (statutory interpretation requires harmonizing entire act)
State v. Carr, 274 Kan. 442 (probation/parole suspend sentence; probation is an alternative to serving sentence)
State v. Huerta, 291 Kan. 831 (presumptive sentences generally nonreviewable on appeal)
State v. Eddy, 299 Kan. 29 (interpretation of KSGA is question of law subject to unlimited review)
State v. Gaudina, 284 Kan. 354 (statutory mandate for postrelease supervision upon termination of prison portion)
State v. Williams, 298 Kan. 1075 (complete sentence includes confinement and postrelease supervision)
State v. Hilton, 295 Kan. 845 (capable-of-repetition/public-importance exception to mootness)