State v. WilliamsState v. Williams
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bukaty
George D. Williams appeals the revocation of his probation. We reverse and remand with directions.
Williams pled guilty to five counts of giving a worthless check. Thе trial court then sentenced him to an underlying prison term of 24 months and placed him on probation for 12 months. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke the prоbation. At the hearing on the motion, the court found Williams to be in violation of the conditions of his probation. The court revoked the probation and ordered Williams to serve his underlying prison sentence.
Williams argues the trial court erred when it оrdered him to serve his underlying prison sentence without first considering placement at Labette Correctional Conservation Camp (Labette). He refers us to thе record and argues that it fails to reflect that the trial court at any time cоnsidered placement at Labette.
The State argues that the record is suffiсient to establish that the trial court did consider placing Williams at Labette. Even thоugh the State does not point to any reference in the record *838where thе trial court indicated it had considered such placement, the State cоntends that the court had before it the affidavit of Ray G. Dreher, the intensive supervisiоn officer for Williams. That affidavit states that Williams does not meet the general eligibility criteria for Labette because of his age and prior incarcerаtion in a penal institution. The State argues that the affidavit was presented to the court and Williams cannot assume the court did not consider this evidence.
This issue involves interpretation of a statute. “Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and an appellate court’s review is unlimited. An appellate court is not bound by the district court’s interpretation of a statute. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Maass, 275 Kan. 328, 330, 64 P.3d 382 (2003).
“[Pfrior tо revocation of a nonprison sanction of a defendant whose offense is classified in the presumptive nonprison grid block of either sentencing guidelinе grid or grid blocks 5-H, 5-1 or 6-G of the sentencing guidelines grid for nondrug crimes or in grid blocks 3-E, 3-F, 3-G, 3-H or 3-1 of the sentencing guidelines grid for drug crimes, the court shall consider placement of the dеfendant in the Labette correctional conservation camp, cоnservation camps established by the secretary of corrections pursuаnt toK.S.A. 75-52,127, and amendment thereto or a community intermediate sanction centеr. Pursuant to this paragraph the defendant shall not be sentenced to imprisonmеnt if space is available in a conservation camp or a community intermediate sanction center and the defendant meets all of the conservation camp’s or a community intermediate sanction center’s placement criteria unless the court states on the record the reasons for nоt placing the defendant in a conservation camp or a community intermediate sanction center.” (Emphasis added.)
Ordinary words are to be given their ordinаiy meaning, and a statute should not be read so as to add that which is not readily found therein or to read out what as a matter of ordinary English language is found in it. GT, Kansas, L.L.C. v. Riley County Register of Deeds, 271 Kan. 311, 316, 22 P.3d 600 (2001).
Simply put,
*839Williams’ criminal history and crime severity level placed him in а presumptive nonprison block on the sentencing grid. In such a case,
Although the trial court may find that Williams does not meеt the placement criteria because of his age and prior incarceration in a penal institution as stated in the affidavit offered by the State, we must remand this case for the trial court to note its consideration of Labette on the record in compliance with
Reversed and remanded with directions.