State v. Long, 281 P.3d 176

Long appeals his sentence; restitution was ordered after sentencing and the issue was framed as whether this was proper or voidable.
He pled guilty to two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and received life terms with 25-year mandatory minimums, to run concurrently.
At sentencing the court did not order restitution but left the issue open for 30 days and suggested a hearing if no agreement.
Within 10 days, Long appealed; district court later ordered $90 restitution, signed by counsel and the prosecutor, with no appearances.
Long argued restitution should have been addressed before sentencing and that he was denied presence at a restitution hearing; the State argued waiver and completion of judgment.
The court concluded the restitution order did not modify the sentence and completed it; the timing issue is governed by McDaniel, which held the hearing requirement is directory when no victim request; Long waived the right to a hearing by not objecting or requesting one.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution must be ordered before sentencing.	Long argues statute requires pre-sentencing hearing.	Long relies on 22-3424(d) to require pre-sentence hearing.	Restitution order completed the sentence; not required pre-sentencing; statute is directory.
Whether Long’s absence at restitution hearing violated his rights.	Long contends absence at hearing violated critical stage rights.	Waiver applies since no objection or request for a hearing.	Waived rights; no error due to waiver and district court offered hearing.

State v. McDaniel, 292 Kan. 443 (2011) (restitution hearing timing is directory when victim requests restitution; does not strip jurisdiction; restitution completes sentence)
State v. Huff, 278 Kan. 214 (2004) (jurisdiction over restitution issues tied to notice of appeal)
State v. Boyd, 268 Kan. 600 (2000) (notice of appeal broad enough to include restitution issues)