Title: State v. Braun

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

253 Kan. 141 (1993)
853 P.2d 686
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
v.
GREGG FRANCIS BRAUN, Appellant.
No. 68,322

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 28, 1993.
Reid T. Nelson, assistant appellate defender, argued the cause, and Jean K. Gilles Phillips, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, were on the brief for appellant.
John P. Wheeler, Jr., county attorney, argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
DAVIS, J.:
The defendant, Gregg Francis Braun, entered pleas of nolo contendere to two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of aggravated robbery. In his direct appeal, he contends the court erred by sentencing him in absentia and abused its discretion in sentencing him. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Highly summarized, the facts are that the defendant, in order to support his cocaine habit, robbed two convenience stores in Finney County, Kansas. On both occasions and within hours of *142 one another, he abducted the female clerk at a convenience store, took her to an isolated area, and killed her execution style with a bullet in the back of the head.
The defendant's pleas of nolo contendere are not in issue. He personally appeared before the court and entered free and voluntary pleas to each count. In open court at the time the defendant entered his pleas, he indicated that he did not wish to be present for sentencing. Sentencing was set for April 30, 1992.
On April 15, 1992, the defendant executed a waiver of appearance for sentencing. He does not contend the waiver was anything other than his voluntary relinquishment of a known right executed with full advice of competent counsel. The waiver executed provides:
"I STATE NO FURTHER."
The defendant's attorney, on the morning set for sentencing, visited with the defendant at the county jail. The defendant again affirmed his decision not to be present at the sentencing and stated that he did not wish his attorney to make any statements on his behalf at the sentencing.
At the sentencing hearing, the following exchange took place with regard to the defendant's absence:
*143 "THE COURT: You may be seated.
"MRS. DANIEL: Yes, sir.
"MRS. DANIEL: Yes.
"Mr. Pierce, has there been victim notification?
"MR. BAHR: That's true, your Honor.
*145 Sentence in Absentia
The defendant claims that the sentences are void because the court failed to make the requisite findings (1) that extraordinary circumstances prevailed and (2) that an injustice would occur by requiring his presence. The defendant bases this argument upon the following quotation from United States v. Brown, 456 F.2d 1112, 1114 (5th Cir.1972), wherein the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated:
In State v. Fennell, 218 Kan. 170, 542 P.2d 686 (1975), this court, after recognizing that "[t]he right to be present at the time sentence or judgment is pronounced has been said to be a common-law right, separate and apart from the constitutional or statutory right to be present at the trial," 218 Kan. at 176, asked two questions:
In Fennell, we adopted the statement of Brown as sound. We also clearly concluded in Fennell that the defendant, within limitations, may waive his right to be present at sentencing.
Application of the federal test under the circumstances of this case demonstrates that the court found sufficient extraordinary circumstances and further concluded that requiring the defendant's presence would otherwise work an injustice when it stated:
Neither Brown nor Fennell require that specific findings as to extraordinary circumstances and injustice be made on the record. The second part of the test requiring a sworn affidavit by the defendant clearly was met in this case. The trial court concluded in this case that because of the explosive proportions of the case, it would accept the waiver. Thus, we may conclude that the federal test has been met.
The defendant relies on several Kansas cases in support of his conclusion that the trial court erred in sentencing him in absentia. However, all cases cited by the defendant in support of his proposition may be distinguished.
Although in Fennell we found the sentencing in absentia void, Fennell does not require the same result here. In Fennell, the defendant fled the jurisdiction after escaping from custody following his conviction and was subsequently sentenced in absentia. The defendant expressly requested, pro se and through his counsel, the right to be present at his sentencing. There was no waiver in Fennell. Additionally, State v. Turbeville, 235 Kan. 993, 686 P.2d 138 (1984); Aeby v. State, 199 Kan. 123, 427 P.2d 453 (1967); *147 and Roberts v. State, 197 Kan. 687, 421 P.2d 48 (1966), dealt with correcting invalid or void sentences, and there was no waiver of appearance in these cases. In none of the cases cited by the defendant did the defendant voluntarily and with advice of counsel execute a written waiver of his right to be present for sentencing and allocution.
The defendant further relies on the case of United States v. Strusberg-Gonzalez, 626 F. Supp. 899, 900-01 (D. Md. 1986), where the defendants were tried in absentia and the court refused to sentence them until they appeared in court. Both defendants were fugitives, did not appear at any stage of the proceedings, and did not file an express waiver of their right to be present during sentencing. Under these circumstances, the court properly refused to sentence them in absentia. In the present case, however, the defendant was present at arraignment and at a subsequent hearing where he changed his plea, and he executed a sworn affidavit waiving his right to be present at sentencing. The defendant's reliance upon Strusberg-Gonzalez is misplaced.
While a trial court should encourage a defendant to execute his or her constitutional, statutory, and common-law right to be present at the sentencing stages of the trial, it is not incumbent upon the court or the prosecutor to force the defendant's appearance for sentencing over the defendant's objection. Here, the defendant indicated at the time he entered his pleas in open court that he did not want to be present for sentencing. Thereafter, with advice of counsel, he executed under oath an express waiver of his right to be present for allocution and sentencing. On the morning of the sentencing, he conferred with his attorney, reaffirmed his desire not to be present for sentencing, and advised his counsel to make no statement to the court on his behalf during sentencing. Under these circumstances, and given the very careful manner in which the trial judge considered on the record the defendant's absence prior to sentencing, we conclude that the defendant waived his right to be present for sentencing. As stated in Fennell, constitutional rights "can within limitations be waived." 218 Kan. at 177.
Sentences Imposed
The court sentenced the defendant to four life sentences on *148 his four class A felonies: two felony-murder counts and two aggravated kidnapping counts. On his two counts of aggravated robbery, class B felonies, the court sentenced the defendant to two 15-year-to-life sentences. All sentences were ordered to run consecutively to each other and to the life sentence the defendant had received in New Mexico.
The defendant contends that the court abused its discretion by failing to follow the provisions of K.S.A. 21-4601 and K.S.A. 21-4606. The defendant contends that the sentences imposed are unduly harsh and fail to consider his severe drug addiction.
The record demonstrates that the court considered the provisions of K.S.A. 21-4601 and K.S.A. 21-4606. In addition, the court ordered and considered a report from the State Reception and Diagnostic Center prior to imposition of sentence. The sentences imposed fall within the permissible statutory limits and, in the absence of special circumstances showing an abuse of discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal. See State v. Crispin, 234 Kan. 104, 671 P.2d 502 (1983). No special circumstances are demonstrated by the defendant showing an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.