State v. Robison, 469 P.3d 83

Background

Robison pled no contest to one count of battery of a law enforcement officer arising from an attack on Corporal Cutright; second count dismissed per plea agreement.
At sentencing court imposed prison and PRS; fine waived and restitution deferred for later hearing.
Lyon County’s workers’ compensation insurer had paid Corporal Cutright’s medical bills totaling $2,648.56.
At restitution hearing hospital records showed bills and insurer payment; Robison did not dispute amount or causation but argued insurer was not entitled to restitution.
District court found causation and ordered Robison to pay $2,648.56 restitution to the insurer.
On appeal Robison challenged restitution as violating Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution (jury right), the Sixth Amendment (Apprendi/Alleyne jury-right arguments), and argued insurer recovery was improper or unsupported.

Issues

Issue	Robison's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Kansas restitution statutes violate Section 5 (right to jury) by allowing judge to decide restitution amount	Section 5 preserves 1859 common-law jury rights; restitution is equivalent to civil damages/causation and juries would have decided such facts at statehood	Criminal restitution is distinct from civil damages; no territorial/statutory tradition requiring juries to impose restitution; statutes are permissible	Court rejected Section 5 challenge: restitution is not a civil judgment and Robison failed to show juries in 1859 would have imposed restitution, so Section 5 not violated
Whether judicial factfinding to set restitution violates Sixth Amendment (Apprendi/Alleyne)	Restitution is part of criminal punishment; under Apprendi/Blakely/Southern Union a judge cannot find facts that increase statutory maximum/minimum without a jury	Restitution is restorative (not a punitive increase of statutory max/min); Kansas statutes set no mandatory maximum or minimum—judge only sets amount of actual loss—so Apprendi/Alleyne do not apply	Court affirmed prior precedent (Huff) and held Sixth Amendment not violated because statutes impose no mandatory minimum/maximum and Apprendi/Alleyne are inapplicable
Whether restitution may be awarded to an insurance carrier and whether loss was established	Insurance carrier not a permissible “aggrieved party” and State failed to prove carrier suffered loss beyond amount shown	Kansas Supreme Court and Kansas appellate precedent allow restitution to insurers who paid victim losses; evidence established insurer paid bills causally related to crime	Court held restitution to insurer was authorized (Beechum and subsequent authority) and finding of causation/amount was supported; award affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be jury-found)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury)
Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012) (Apprendi principle applied to criminal fines; jury must find facts that determine fine’s maximum)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (definition of ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes)
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (restitution can implicate prosecutorial powers and have punitive aspects)
State v. Applegate, 266 Kan. 1072 (1999) (criminal restitution is separate from civil damages; award reimburses actual loss)
State v. Beechum, 251 Kan. 194 (1992) (restitution may be paid to insurance companies)
State v. Huff, 50 Kan. App. 2d 1094 (Kan. App. 2014) (Kansas appellate holding that restitution statutes do not violate Sixth Amendment)
United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2012) (Apprendi does not apply to restitution calculations)
United States v. George, 949 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2020) (federal circuit precedent rejecting extension of Apprendi to restitution)