State v. McKnight
257 P.3d 339
| Kan. | 2011Background
- McKnight pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 30 months with 24 months' postrelease supervision.
- Because the crime fell in a border box on the drug grid, the trial court suspended the sentence and placed McKnight on an 18-month probation.
- Upon probation violations, the court revoked probation and imposed a modified 22-month incarceration sentence; it initially concluded postrelease supervision did not apply due to technical violations.
- Two months later, the State moved to correct an illegal sentence; after reviewing the transcript, the court reinstated a 22-month incarceration with 24 months' postrelease supervision.
- The Court of Appeals held that the mandatory postrelease supervision could not be reduced upon probation revocation unless K.S.A. 22-3716(e) applied, and affirmed the district court's correction; this Court reversed, vacating the postrelease supervision and affirming the original 22-month incarceration with no postrelease supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May probation revocation reduce postrelease supervision for border-box offenses? | McKnight argues the court could impose a lawful lesser sentence without PRS under 22-3716(b). | State argues PRS is mandated except under 22-3716(e) for certain technical violations. | Yes; the lesser sentence analysis allows non-PRS where legally authorized. |
| Does 22-3716(e) apply to border-box offenses for probation revocation? | McKnight does not qualify for 22-3716(e) exemption due to border-box crime. | State contends the exception applies only in limited circumstances and may not for border boxes. | 24 months PRS not required; 22-3716(e) does not govern this case. |
| Can a court correct an illegal sentence under 22-3504(1) after probation revocation? | If the initial revocation produced an illegal sentence, correction is allowed. | Correction may be warranted, but not to impose additional PRS if prohibited by statute. | Court could correct an illegal sentence; but here the shift to PRS was improper and vacated. |
| Does Moore/Abasolo-type rule about sentence effectiveness affect modification after sentencing? | Sentence is effective upon pronouncement; modification later is limited to illegal sentences. | Discretion exists to correct mistakes but not to add PRS post-issuance. | A legal sentence announced cannot be modified to impose PRS that statute disallows. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ballard, 289 Kan. 1000 (2009) (initial illegal postrelease supervision can be corrected to longer PRS)
- State v. McCoin, 278 Kan. 465 (2004) (sentence effective upon pronouncement; jurisdiction limits to correct illegal sentence)
- Abasolo v. State, 284 Kan. 299 (2007) (sentence effective on pronouncement; unlimited review for illegality)
- State v. McCarley, 287 Kan. 167 (2008) (definition and review standard for illegal sentences)
- State v. Johnson, 39 Kan. App. 2d 438 (2008) (mootness and postrelease supervision considerations in appeals)
- Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Duffy, 259 Kan. 500 (1996) (mootness doctrine and public-interest considerations)
- State v. Riojas, 288 Kan. 379 (2009) (interpretation of sentencing statutes is a question of law)