Print Page | Sign In | Register
Appellate Court Digests
Blog Home All Blogs
Search all posts for:   

 

View all (178) posts »
 

February 21, 2020 Digest

Posted By Administration, Monday, February 24, 2020

Kansas Court of Appeals

criminal 

criminal procedure—restitution—sentencing—statutes
state v. roberts
sedgwick district court—vacated and remanded
no. 120,377—february 21, 2020

FACTS: Roberts convicted of burglary and theft. Sentence included order to pay $50,407.86 in restitution, jointly and severally with co-defendant, but the order did not direct any manner of payment or establish a payment plan. Roberts appealed, claiming district court’s noncompliance with statutory requirement to establish a restitution payment plan rendered the sentence illegal.

ISSUE: (1) Restitution plan

HELD: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6604(b)(2) is interpreted, finding the statute refers to a "plan established by the court for payment of restitution." That language does not merely refer to a court's order of an amount of restitution but shows legislative intent that the court establish a payment plan when it orders restitution. Based on clear statutory language, Roberts’ sentence is illegal.  Restitution order is vacated and remanded to correct the sentence by establishing a plan for payment of restitution. State v. Garza, No. 118,840 (Kan. App.)(unpublished opinion), rev. denied 310 Kan. __ (2019), is distinguished as focusing on section (b)(1) of the statute rather than (b)(2). Legislature must address any concern that it is unreasonable to require a district court to order a total amount of restitution, establish a payment plan, tell the defendant of that payment plan, and permit a defendant to show the plan is unworkable.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6604(b). -6604(b)(1), -6604(b)(2), -6604(e), -6604(i), -6608(c)(7), 22-3504(3), -3717(n), -3718

Tags:  Criminal  Criminal Procedure  Restitution  Sedgwick District Court  Sentencing  Statutes  Weekly-2020-02-25 

Share |
Permalink | Comments (0)