Case Title: City of Junction City v. Griffin

Citation: 226 Kan. 516, 601 P.2d 684

Docket Number: 50,749

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1979-10-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
226 Kan. 516 (1979)
601 P.2d 684
CITY OF JUNCTION CITY, KANSAS, Appellee,
v.
JANICE MARIE GRIFFIN, a/k/a/ JANICE MARIE JONES, Appellant.
No. 50,749

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed October 27, 1979.
Steven Hornbaker of Harper & Hornbaker, Junction City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Michael P. McKone, Junction City, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HERD, J.:
Janice Marie Griffin was found guilty by a jury of solicitation for prostitution in violation of Junction City city ordinance 12-509(a) and sentenced under city ordinance 12-509(b) to a mandatory 30 days in jail with no probation. Appellant appeals upon an agreed statement from the sentencing ordinance. We reverse.
On April 29, 1978, appellant was arrested in Junction City and charged with solicitation for prostitution in violation of city ordinance 12-509(a) and was tried and convicted by the municipal court. She appealed and was tried and convicted by a jury in district court on September 25, 1978 and sentenced under ordinance 12-509(b), which requires a mandatory jail sentence without probation or parole. Appellant made application for probation which the district court denied on December 28, 1978. From that order this appeal is taken.
Appellant argues the mandatory sentencing ordinance without probation or parole is unconstitutional in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. We need not meet that issue. Junction City city ordinance No. 12-509(b) is in violation of the Code of Procedure for Municipal Courts, K.S.A. 12-4101 through 12-4701, *517 which contains a comprehensive code of criminal procedure. K.S.A. 12-4102 states:
This code preempts the field of criminal procedure in Municipal Courts except as provided in K.S.A. 12-4103:
Only where no procedure is provided can the procedure be varied and then only by the court.
The code provides for probation and parole at K.S.A. 12-4511, which states:
The Code of Procedure for Municipal Courts is exempt from the home rule provision of the Kansas Constitution (Kan. Const. Art. 12, § 5), because it is of statewide concern and is applicable to all cities. The express legislative intent is set out in K.S.A. 12-4102.
In Claflin v. Walsh, 212 Kan. 1, 7-8, 509 P.2d 1130 (1973), we stated:
....
See also City of Junction City v. Lee, 216 Kan. 495, 532 P.2d 1292 (1975); Jennings v. Walsh, 214 Kan. 398, 521 P.2d 311 (1974); Hutchinson Human Relations Comm. v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 213 Kan. 308, 517 P.2d 158 (1973).
Matters under the Code of Municipal Court Procedure are of statewide rather than local concern. The public, parties and attorneys deserve to know the appropriate court procedure; it is an essential part of due process and the rule of law. In addition the code applies uniformly to all cities, making it exempt from the home rule provision in two categories.
We hold Junction City city ordinance 12-509(b) is ultra vires and void to the extent it varies from K.S.A. 12-4511.
The judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
McFARLAND, J., dissenting.
FROMME, J., not participating.