Case Title: State v. Pressley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 98823

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 2010-01-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 98,823 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
DAVID N. PRESSLEY, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
1. 
A delay in sentencing from a defendant's plea or from a finding of guilty after trial does 
not deprive a defendant of the right to a speedy trial. 
 
2.  
K.S.A. 22-3424(c) addresses concerns for prompt sentencing after a verdict or finding of 
guilt by requiring that judgment be rendered and sentence pronounced without unreasonable 
delay, allowing adequate time for the filing and disposition of posttrial motions and completion 
of such presentence investigations as the court may require. 
 
3. 
The doctrine of stare decisis generally requires the same court and all courts of lower 
rank follow an established point of law in subsequent cases pertaining to the same legal issue. A 
court of last resort will follow the rule of law established in its earlier cases unless clearly 
convinced the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing 
conditions and more good than harm will come by departing from precedent. 
 
4. 
An issue not briefed is deemed waived or abandoned. 
 
  
Filed: January 22, 2010 
Corrected: March 10, 2010 
2 
 
5. 
Appellate courts do not ordinarily consider issues the parties failed to raise unless 
exceptional circumstances apply, such as when it is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to 
prevent the denial of fundamental rights. 
 
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed November 7, 2008.  
Appeal from Sedgwick district court; MARK A. VINING, judge.  Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the 
district court on the issue subject to our grant of review is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed.  
Opinion filed January 22, 2010. 
 
Randall L. Hodgkinson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for 
appellant.  
 
Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Nola Tedesco Foulston, district 
attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, were with her on the briefs for appellee. 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
BILES, J.:  David N. Pressley argues a 16-month delay to impose a criminal sentence 
violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. We hold speedy trial requirements do not 
include sentencing as previously determined by this court in State v. Freeman, 236 Kan. 274, 
280, 689 P.2d 885 (1984). We affirm the sentence. 
 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
On November 8, 2005, Pressley was convicted of two aggravated robberies, aggravated 
burglary, and attempted aggravated robbery after a bench trial on stipulated facts. Sentencing 
was set for December 15, 2005. In the interim, Pressley was arrested on unrelated charges in 
neighboring Reno County and remained in custody there, causing him to miss his Sedgwick 
County sentencing hearing.  
 
After being advised by Pressley's counsel why Pressley was unable to appear for 
sentencing, the Sedgwick County District Court ordered a bond forfeiture alias warrant. The 
3 
 
court decided Pressley's sentencing would not be rescheduled until "Reno County is done with 
him." When the State asked if Pressley's bond would remain the same, the court stated, "Let's 
just put no bond allowed so we can get him in and out in a timely fashion and that will get set 
quicker for hearing that way." Pressley remained in custody until the Reno County proceedings 
concluded. 
 
On December 19, 2006, Pressley pleaded guilty to his Reno County charges. It is unclear 
from the record how Sedgwick County learned about Pressley's conviction in Reno County, but 
his Sedgwick County sentencing was set for February 14, 2007. At that hearing Pressley 
requested a continuance to discuss with his counsel the effect the sentencing delay had on his 
case. The continuance was granted. Sentencing occurred on February 22, 2007. 
 
The Reno County conviction impacted Pressley's Sedgwick County sentence by 
increasing his criminal history score from category H to category E. This resulted in a 22-month 
increase in Pressley's presumptive sentence on the primary offense, aggravated robbery. Pressley 
did not object. The court sentenced him to the standard presumptive sentence, 88 months. He 
timely filed his appeal from the sentence and one of his aggravated robbery convictions. 
 
Before the Court of Appeals, Pressley argued for the first time that the Sedgwick County 
sentencing delay violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and negatively impacted 
his prison sentence by increasing his criminal history score after he returned to Sedgwick 
County. He contended the court should address the issue for the first time on appeal because it 
was "necessary to serve the ends of justice or prevent a denial of fundamental rights." 
 
The Court of Appeals reached the issue by invoking K.S.A. 21-4721(e)(2), which allows 
an appellate court to review any claim that a criminal history score was calculated erroneously 
because of the wrongful inclusion or exclusion of a prior conviction. Pressley, slip op. at 7-8. 
Adhering to Freeman, the Court of Appeals held constitutional speedy trial rights do not apply to 
postconviction proceedings. Pressley, slip op. at 8. In addition, that court panel, sua sponte, held 
the facts did not support finding the delay was unreasonable under K.S.A. 22-3424, which 
requires sentencing to be "pronounced without unreasonable delay."  Pressley, slip op. at 8-9. 
4 
 
 
Pressley petitioned this court for review. We granted review on the speedy sentencing 
issue only. Parenthetically, we note the State argued after review was granted that the Court of 
Appeals erred by addressing the speedy sentencing issue for the first time on appeal. That 
argument was settled in Pressley's favor because the State did not seek review on that point (see 
Supreme Court Rule 8.03[g][1] [2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66]), but we will briefly comment on 
it. 
 
Accordingly, this opinion addresses the following issues: (1) Whether we will continue to 
adhere to Freeman's holding that the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial does not 
encompass sentencing; and (2) whether Pressley's statutory right under K.S.A. 22-3424 to 
sentencing without unreasonable delay was properly before the Court of Appeals. 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
Issue 1: Sixth Amendment Right to a Speedy Trial  
 
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. U.S. Const. amend. VI. 
Further, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes that right on the states.  
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 222-23, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1, 87 S. Ct. 988 (1967). Pressley 
argues the United States Supreme Court held the right to a speedy trial extends through 
sentencing in Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 1 L. Ed. 2d 393, 77 S. Ct. 481 (1957). But 
Pressley is wrong. The Court in that case only assumed the right existed for purposes of dealing 
with the litigant's issues. Pollard, 352 U.S. at 361 ("We will assume arguendo that sentencing is 
part of the trial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.") Accordingly, Pollard does not hold the 
right to a speedy trial extends through sentencing.  
 
Each state and federal Circuit Court of Appeals has been free to interpret whether the 
right to a speedy trial extends to sentencing because there is no controlling United States 
Supreme Court authority dealing with this question. Courts are divided on the question. See 
Perez v. Sullivan, 793 F.2d 249, 252-57 (10th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 936 (1986); 
Gonzales v. State, 582 P.2d 630 (Alaska 1978); Jolly v. State, 358 Ark. 180, 189 S.W.3d 40 
5 
 
(2004); Trotter v. State, 554 So. 2d 313 (Miss. 1989) (all holding the Sixth Amendment right to 
speedy trial includes speedy sentencing). Compare State v. Drake, 259 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 1977), 
overruled on other grounds State v. Kaster, 469 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 1991); State v. Johnson, 363 
So. 2d 458 (La. 1978); Ball v. Whyte, 170 W.Va. 417, 294 S.E.2d 270 (1982) (all holding the 
Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial does not encompass speedy sentencing). 
 
In 1984, this court refused to recognize that the Sixth Amendment encompasses the right 
to speedy sentencing. Freeman, 236 Kan. at 280. Pressley fails to address this case in his brief 
and gives us no reason why it should be reconsidered or was wrongly decided. In Freeman, this 
court plainly stated: "A delay of sentencing from a defendant's plea or from a finding of guilty 
after a trial does not deprive a defendant of the right to a speedy trial." 236 Kan. at 280. 
 
The Freeman court reached its conclusion by noting the constitutional speedy trial 
considerations set out by the United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 
532, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101, 92 S. Ct. 2182 (1972), and discussed by this court in State v. Mick, 229 
Kan. 157, 159, 621 P.2d 1006 (1981). Freeman, 236 Kan. at 280. Those considerations are: (1) 
preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration; (2) minimizing the accused's anxiety and concern; 
and (3) limiting the possibility that the accused's defense efforts will be impaired. Mick, 229 
Kan. at 159 (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 532). 
 
Without further discussion, the Freeman court concluded none of these factors are 
present after a criminal defendant has pleaded or been found guilty and is awaiting sentence. 
Freeman, 236 Kan. at 280. To support its conclusion, the court referenced decisions from two 
other states, Pennsylvania and Texas, also holding the right to a speedy trial does not encompass 
sentencing. 236 Kan. at 280 (citing Com. v. Hill, 267 Pa. Super. 264, 406 A.2d 796 (1979), and 
Easley v. State, 564 S.W.2d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).  But in referencing these two decisions, 
the court did not acknowledge other contemporary case law adopting an approach that assumed 
or recognized the right existed, including a Pennsylvania case following Pollard's example. See 
Juarez-Casares v. United States, 496 F.2d 190 (5th Cir. 1974); Gonzales, 582 P.2d 630; Com. v. 
Pounds, 490 Pa. 621, 417 A.2d 597 (1980).  
 
6 
 
In the 25 years since Freeman was decided, we note Pennsylvania now has fully adopted 
the position that the Sixth Amendment applies to sentencing. See Com. v. Greer, 382 Pa. Super 
127, 134, 554 A.2d 980 (1989) ("Rather than merely continue to perpetuate the assumption that 
the Speedy Trial Clause applies to sentencing, we will treat the subject as established law."). In 
Texas, we are aware of no published opinions taking a contrary view from that state's previous 
decision. But we note an unpublished decision in which a Texas appellate court assumed the 
right existed and applied the factors based on that assumption. Crocker v. State, 1997 WL 
695405 (Tex. App. 1997) (unpublished opinion).                  
 
But these are not reasons to depart from our holding in Freeman. As noted above, there 
are states that do not find the speedy trial right applies to sentencing. In addition, our state has 
addressed the concern in K.S.A. 22-3424(c), which requires: "If the verdict or finding is guilty, 
judgment shall be rendered and sentence pronounced without unreasonable delay, allowing 
adequate time for the filing and disposition of post-trial motions and for completion of such 
presentence investigation as the court may require." 
 
In addition, the well-established doctrine of stare decisis generally requires that once a 
point of law has been established it will be followed by the same court and all courts of lower 
rank in subsequent cases pertaining to the same legal issue. A court of last resort will follow the 
rule of law it established unless clearly convinced the rule was originally erroneous or is no 
longer sound because of changing conditions and more good than harm will come by departing 
from precedent. Crist v. Hunan Palace, Inc., 277 Kan. 706, 715, 89 P.3d 573 (2004). Admittedly 
the doctrine is at its weakest in the constitutional field, but absent a ruling from the United States 
Supreme Court explicitly extending speedy trial protections to sentencing, we see no reason to 
change course. See State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441, 463, 163 P.3d 252 (2007) (citing Payne v. 
Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827-28, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720, 111 S. Ct. 2597, reh. denied 501 U.S. 1277 
[1991]).  
 
Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals' decision applying Freeman as a bar to 
Pressley's presentation of a constitutional right to a speedy sentence under the Sixth Amendment. 
 
7 
 
Issue 2. Court of Appeals' consideration of K.S.A. 22-3424 
 
  We briefly address this second issue only to point out the Court of Appeals erred by 
analyzing whether Pressley's statutory protection from unreasonable delay in sentencing under 
K.S.A. 22-3424(c) was violated. The Court of Appeals determined the statutory right was not 
violated, but a review of the briefs on appeal shows Pressley never properly raised the issue. 
  
It is undisputed that Pressley did not make this statutory claim to the district court. His 
sole reference to the statute came in his appellate brief where he stated, "Kansas law and the 
Sixth Amendment require that sentencing must occur without unreasonable delay. K.S.A. 22-
3424(c)." Pressley made no argument regarding the statute and provided no analysis to assert a 
statutory argument on appeal. 
 
To the extent Pressley wished to raise a statutory claim in addition to the Sixth 
Amendment challenge, we deem it waived for failure to adequately address the matter. State v. 
Harned, 281 Kan. 1023, 1048, 135 P.3d 1169 (2006) (claims raised in passing without argument 
or citation to authority are deemed waived). We find it was error for the Court of Appeals to 
address the statutory issue, though it ultimately found the statute was not violated. Appellate 
courts do not ordinarily consider issues the parties failed to raise unless an issue's consideration 
is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights. State v. 
Adams, 283 Kan. 365, 367, 153 P.3d 512 (2007). No such circumstances were presented in this 
case.   
 
Affirmed.