Case Title: State v. Burkett

Citation: 231 Kan. 686, 648 P.2d 716

Docket Number: 53,844

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1982-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
231 Kan. 686 (1982)
648 P.2d 716
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
JAMES C. BURKETT, SR., Appellee.
No. 53,844

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 16, 1982.
John K. Bork, county attorney, argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, and Julia A. Craft, legal intern, were with him on the brief for appellant.
Clinton C. Marker, of Topeka, argued the cause and Bruce K. McAlister, of Topeka, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MILLER, J.:
This is a criminal case. The State appeals, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(1), from the trial court's dismissal of Count I of the second amended complaint.
The facts must be stated in some detail. Defendant James C. Burkett, Sr., was originally charged with the aggravated battery of Luanne Vohs, K.S.A. 21-3414, with a deadly weapon, to-wit: an automobile. Burkett was arrested in Alabama, waived extradition, and was returned to Kansas. Shortly before the preliminary hearing was to be held, plea negotiations resulted in a plea agreement. The defendant agreed to enter pleas of nolo contendere to charges of reckless driving, K.S.A. 8-1566, and failure to stop and remain at the scene of an injury accident, K.S.A. 8-1602. The State agreed that in return for the defendant's nolo contendere pleas it would (1) dismiss the felony charge, (2) request that the sentencing judge not impose incarceration as a penalty, and (3) remain silent *687 and not make a recommendation as to the amount of the fine to be imposed.
The State then filed a first amended complaint charging the two misdemeanors only; the defendant entered pleas of nolo contendere to both charges before a district magistrate judge in Jefferson County; the State recommended that no incarceration be imposed, and it did not suggest the amount of the fine. The judge requested a presentence report and, after it was received, imposed concurrent sentences: six months in the county jail for reckless driving, and one year for leaving the scene of an injury accident. (Counsel agree that the sentence imposed for reckless driving was erroneous, the maximum sentence of confinement for a first offense of reckless driving being ninety days, as provided by K.S.A. 8-1566.)
Defendant promptly filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the district magistrate judge to the district judge. The State then filed a second amended complaint, charging Burkett with three offenses. Count I reasserted the original felony charge of aggravated battery; Counts II and III charged misdemeanors, reckless driving and leaving the scene of an injury accident.
The defendant moved to dismiss the second amended complaint or in the alternative to dismiss Count I, the felony charge. After the submission of briefs and oral argument, the district judge sustained the motion and dismissed Count I. In his oral ruling, the judge observed that the defendant had entered pleas of nolo contendere before the district magistrate judge as agreed; that he did not agree to accept whatever sentence was imposed; and that he has an absolute right to appeal to a district judge or to an associate district judge, and to have a trial de novo before such judge. The ruling was based upon Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 40 L. Ed. 2d 628, 94 S. Ct. 2098 (1974). The trial judge concluded that the State's assertion of a more serious charge in response to the defendant's exercise of his right of appeal constituted a violation of due process.
Under the facts of this case, the issue before us is whether the State may reassert the felony charge.
We will review the applicable statutes, then the applicable case law.
K.S.A. 22-3609a provides:
K.S.A. 22-3610 provides:
K.S.A. 22-3611 provides:
K.S.A. 22-3609a and K.S.A. 22-3610 were amended by 1982 Senate Bill 699, § 19 and 20. These amendments, however, did not change the portions of the statutes quoted above.
In North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656, 89 S. Ct. 2072 (1969), Pearce had been convicted of a felony in a North Carolina trial court. Several years later, he successfully attacked the conviction and a new trial was ordered. He was retried, was again convicted, and was then sentenced to a longer total sentence than that which was originally imposed. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the North Carolina Supreme Court. Pearce then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. That court held that the longer sentence imposed upon retrial was unconstitutional and void. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that a due process violation may result when a more severe sentence is imposed on a defendant who is retried and convicted after successfully pursuing an appeal or otherwise attacking his original conviction and sentence. The court said:
In Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, the Pearce principle was extended to prosecutors and the manner in which they conduct their affairs. Perry was charged with a misdemeanor in a North Carolina district court. He was convicted and given a six-month sentence. He then filed a notice of appeal to the Superior Court since, under North Carolina law, a person convicted in the district court has a right to a trial de novo in the Superior Court. The appeal automatically annuls the prior conviction and both the State and the defendant begin anew in the Superior Court. At this stage of the proceedings, the prosecutor obtained an indictment from a grand jury charging Perry with a felony based on the same conduct which was the subject of the misdemeanor charge. He entered a plea of guilty to the indictment and was sentenced to a term of five to seven years in the penitentiary. He later attacked this conviction through habeas corpus in the United States district court, which held that the bringing of the felony charge after the filing of the appeal violated his constitutional rights. The United States Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the bringing of the felony indictment violated Perry's right to due process. The court said:
The case before us is factually distinguishable from Blackledge in that the defendant herein was originally convicted on a bargained *690 nolo contendere plea to the misdemeanors; he had been charged initially with a felony.
Plea bargaining is a useful and necessary tool which the prosecutor may employ, in his or her discretion. The practice has been approved by the United States Supreme Court and by this court. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427, 92 S. Ct. 495 (1971), and State v. Jackson, 223 Kan. 554, 558, 575 P.2d 536 (1978).
In the case at hand, both the defendant and the State made certain concessions and received certain benefits. The defendant was assured that he would no longer be charged with a felony; the charge would be reduced. The State was assured of a conviction of two serious misdemeanors without the time and the expense of a felony trial. Both parties initially performed under the plea bargain as agreed. Upon the imposition of sentence, which was harsher than the defendant had anticipated, he filed notice of appeal to the district judge.
The quoted statute, K.S.A. 22-3609a, gives defendant this privilege as a matter of right. The effect of the appeal is to stay all further proceedings before the district magistrate judge. The case is to be tried de novo before the district judge or an associate district judge. The pleas entered before the district magistrate judge are automatically vacated; otherwise there would be no reason for a trial. The proceedings start afresh; arraignment must be held; new pleas must be entered; a jury may be demanded; and if conviction results, the judge must direct the disposition, whether by fine, sentence, suspension of sentence, probation or otherwise. The plea, conviction and disposition had before the district magistrate judge are subject to automatic vacation by the appeal; none remain.
A situation similar to that now before us was presented in United States ex rel. Williams v. McMann, 436 F.2d 103 (2d Cir.1970), cert. denied 402 U.S. 914 (1971). In that case, decided after Pearce but before Blackledge, the court faced a situation where the accused and the state had entered into a plea agreement. Defendant Williams, originally charged with sale of heroin, pleaded guilty to an attempted sale and was sentenced to three to seven years. He sought and was granted permission to withdraw his guilty plea, and was later tried, convicted and sentenced to a term of five to ten years for the original offense charged, sale of *691 heroin. He attacked this sentence by habeas corpus in the federal courts, contending that the increased charge and sentence was violation of the Pearce principle. The district court denied relief and the Second Circuit affirmed. It said:
....
Other cases follow a similar line of reasoning. Thus, in United States v. Johnson, 537 F.2d 1170 (4th Cir.1976), where guilty pleas to two of four counts were later vacated, it was held to be no denial of due process to charge all four original counts on retrial; in United States v. Anderson, 514 F.2d 583 (7th Cir.1975), where a plea-bargained guilty plea to a lesser charge was later challenged and withdrawn, it was held to be no denial of due process to then prosecute on the greater charge; and in United States v. Williams, 534 F.2d 119 (8th Cir.1976), where a conviction on a bargained guilty plea to a lesser charge was reversed, no due process violation was found when the defendant was brought to *692 trial on the original charges. See also Hawk v. Berkemer, 610 F.2d 445 (6th Cir.1979); Hardwick v. Doolittle, 558 F.2d 292 (5th Cir.1977); and Com. v. Ward, 493 Pa. 115, 425 A.2d 401, cert. denied 451 U.S. 974 (1981). In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 54 L. Ed. 2d 604, 98 S. Ct. 663 (1978), the Court found that the Due Process Clause did not bar prosecution on the original indictment after the defendant refused a plea bargain offer to lesser charges. The Court observed:
See also United States v. Goodwin, ___ U.S. ___, 73 L. Ed. 2d 74, 102 S. Ct. 2485 (decided June 18, 1982).
In the case now before us, both parties carried out their obligations under the agreement when the case was presented to the district magistrate judge. When the defendant appealed the matter to the district judge, however, the defendant's pleas of nolo contendere were automatically vacated. The effect was the same as if he had requested and had been granted leave to withdraw his nolo pleas.
The prosecutor then refiled the original felony charge, together with the misdemeanors. When the defendant is arraigned before the district judge, he may wish to plead nolo contendere again to the misdemeanor charges. If he does so, the plea arrangement will still be in effect and will be binding on both parties, and the State will be obligated to dismiss the felony charge. If, on the other hand, defendant does not plead nolo contendere to the misdemeanors, the defendant will have repudiated the plea agreement and the matter will go to trial on the original felony charge. Thus, a defendant who is convicted on a bargained guilty or nolo contendere plea before a district magistrate judge, and who is aggrieved by the sentence imposed, may appeal to a district or associate district judge and be sentenced anew without facing the original more serious charge, so long as he is willing to enter the bargained plea upon appeal. We note, however, that the district or *693 associate district judge is not limited by any lawful sentence imposed by the district magistrate judge, and in the absence of vindictiveness may impose any sentence prescribed for the offenses. See State v. Parker, 213 Kan. 229, 516 P.2d 153 (1973), and State v. Eaton, 213 Kan. 86, 89, 515 P.2d 807 (1973).
We see no indication of vindictiveness here; the prosecutor is merely reasserting the original felony charge. He has not filed new and more serious charges as a result of the defendant's appeal. To hold that the prosecutor may not do so would permit a defendant to secure the benefit of his plea bargain  reduced charges  and also to have a trial on those charges rather than to enter nolo contendere pleas as agreed. The State would lose the entire benefit of its bargain; it would realize no convictions, and it would face the time and expense of trial on the reduced charges. Defendant would have everything to gain and nothing to lose, the "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" gamble described in United States ex rel. William.
We conclude that the State is not precluded from reasserting the original charges under either Pearce or Blackledge, and that the trial court erred in dismissing Count I of the second amended complaint.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.