1 NOT DE S IGNA T ED F OR PU B LICAT I ON

No. 122, 2 90

IN THE C OURT OF A PPEALS OF T H E S T ATE OF KANS A S

S T A TE O F K A N S AS

, Appellee

,

v.

T E R E S A A NN A R O D R I G U E Z

, Appellant

.

MEMO R AND U M OP I NION

A ppeal fr o m F o r d Di s t r i ct C ou r t ; E

. L EI G H H OOD

, j u d ge. Opi n i on f i l ed M a r ch 1 2

, 2021.

A ff i r m ed.

Andrew M

. S t e i n

, of D o l l L aw F i r m , L LC

, o f D odge C it y, and P e t e r J . A n t os h , of G a rc i a &

A n t osh, LL P

, of D od g e C it y. f or app e l l a n t

.

S t e v en J. O b e r

m e i e r

, a s s i s t ant s o l i c i t o r ge n e r a l

, a nd D e r ek Schmi d t

, a t t o r n ey g e n e r a l

, f

o r

appe l l e e.

Before B R U N S

. P.J., G R E E N and A T CH E S O N

, JJ.

P E R C U R I A M : Defendant Teresa A n n a Ro d ri g uez appeals t he 5 1

- m o nth sentence

the Ford C ounty Distr i ct Court o r dered her to serve foll o wing her n o

- contest plea to

possessi o n of me t ham

p hetamine w ith inte n t to distribute. Rodri g uez c ontends the State

impermis s ibly dec l ined to honor a plea agr e e m ent with her when i t o p posed her r e quest

for probati o n. Cut t ing t hrough s o me proc e dur a l clutter, we find no ba s is to u p set the

district cou r t ' s sentenc i ng decision and, t h ere f ore, affirm.2

The factual c ircumst an ces underly i ng the dis c overy of the drugs a n d Rodrigue z '

arrest are i m material t o the i s sues on appe a l. T hrough h er lawyer, R o driguez w o r ked out

an arrangem e nt wi t h t h e State und e r which s h e would pl e ad to o ne c ount of p o ssessi o n of

methamph e tamine with the intent t o distr i bute, a severity l e vel 3 d r ug felony. In r e turn,

the State w ould d i smi s s two less serious dru g

- related charg e s and n ot oppose R odrigue z '

request for a reduced b ond while she awa i ted sentencing. In addi t ion, the Sta t e a greed not

to oppose Rodri g uez' motion for both a r edu c tion in t h e standard gu i delines sen t ence and

placement o n proba t io n

, even tho u gh the p res u mptive di s positi o n un d er the sente n cing

guidelines c alled for i n carceration. As part o f the agreeme n t, how e v e r, the State r eserved

the right to seek a s ta n dard guidel i nes se n t e n c e, includi n g incarcer a t i on, if Rod r iguez

violated the bond t e rm s

.

Rodriguez pleaded no contest in l ate July 20 1 9 to the m e thamph e ta m ine charge.

Consistent with t he pl e a agr e ement, the Sta t e dismissed the oth e r ch a rges. The d i strict

court set a p ersonal r e c ognizance b ond for R o driguez, and she w a s r e leased from jail.

About a m onth lat e r, R odriguez re p orted to a court servic e s officer a s required u nder the

bond. But she ref

u sed t o provide a urine s a mp l e for drug t e sting a nd l eft without

permissio n

. The c o u rt s ervices offic e r req u es te d and receiv e d an arr e s t warrant for

Rodriguez f

or viol a ting the condit i ons of her b ond. Rodr i guez w a s ta k en into cus t ody on

the warrant a nd rem a i n ed in jail u ntil her s ent e ncing heari n g.

At that hear i ng in l a te October 2 0 19, t he State submitted it was no l o nger bound to

the plea a gre e ment a n d argued R o driguez s h o uld receive a presu m pt i ve guideli n e s

sentence that includ e d i ncarceration. Rodri g u e z' lawyer ackno w ledg e d the terms of the

plea agreem e nt and t he apparent b o nd vio l ati o n. During a llocuti o n, R odriguez a d mitted

the bond v i olation and described t h e dee p

- s e a t ed substan c e abuse t hat continued to afflict

her when s he was r e le a sed on bo n d. But Rodr i guez told t he distri c t c o urt that she had

been sober i n jail f

o ll o wing the b ond rev o cat i on and that she bel i ev e d she wou l d remain

drug free if given a c h a nce on pro b ation c o ns i stent wi t h the plea a gr e ement.3

The district court s t at e d that it li k ely wo u ld h ave follow e d the pl e a a greement a n d

placed Rod r iguez o n p r obation had she n o t v i o lated her b o nd con d iti o ns. The di s trict

court al s o p ointed out t he Sta t e w a s no l o nger constrai n ed by the a gr e ement in t a king a

position o n sente n cing. Given R o drigue z ' fail u re on bond, the di s trict court concl u ded it

would fol l ow the State ' s recomme n da t ion a nd impose a s t andard gui d elines sent e nce for

possessi o n of me t ham

p hetamine w ith inte n t to distribute. Accord i ng l y, the dist r ict court

ordered R o driguez t o s erve 51 m o nths in pris o n followed by 36 mon t hs on pos t release

supervisi o n. Rod r iguez has appea le d.

The State c o ntends R o driguez can n ot appe a l because she received a sentence

conformi n g to t h e stat u tory gu i de l ines. S e e K

. S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6 8 20(c). The l e gal

principle is correct. But we view R odrigue z ' a r gument to be differ e nt. We underst a nd

Rodriguez t o be a s s ert i ng the Sta t e impe r miss i bly refused to foll o w t h e plea agree m ent,

thereby ent i tling her to a new sent e ncing he a r i ng. As we explain, we find the a r g ument

unavailing on the f

a cts. But a defe n dant m a y a ppeal the S tate ' s failure to honor a plea

agreement, e ven if t h e district cou r t has i mpo s ed a guidel i nes sen t en c e. See State v.

Jones

, 302 Kan. 1 1 1, 1 14, 351 P

. 3d 12 2 8 (20 1 5) (court re v iews a n d d ecides defe n dant ' s

claim State breached p l ea agreement, even t ho ugh distri c t court i mp o sed guidel i nes

sentence )

.

In crafting h er appel l a t e argument, Rodri g uez adds anoth e r proce d ur a l wrinkle.

She conte n ds she h ad a constitut i onal due pro c ess right to a heari n g o n the revoca t ion of

her bond. And bec a use she had not been af f or d ed a hearing, the St a te could not r e ly on

the bond v i olation to a void the p l ea agree m e n t ' s lim i tations on its po sition at s e ntencin g

.

We assume witho u t d e ciding that Rodri g uez h ad both sta t utory a nd c onstituti o nal righ t s

to a hearing on the a ll e ged bond v iolatio n

. But that carries Rodri g uez on l y so far under

the circum s tances.4

Under K. S .A. 22

- 28 0 4, a dis t rict court may s et an a p pe a rance bond f or a defendant

f ollow i ng convict i on and bef o re s entencin g

. T he dis t r ict court d i d s o here. If

a defendant violates an appearance b ond, t h e d istrict court may re v o k e the bond a s

provided in K.S. A

. 20 2 0 Supp. 2 2

- 2807. If a d efendant fai l s to ap p ea r

, the distri c t court

may imm e diately f

orfe i t the bond. K.S.A. 20 2 0 Supp. 2 2

- 2807 ( 1). T h e defendan t ' s fai l ure

to appear w ould be a s e l f

- evident fa i lure to co mply w i th the fu n dam e ntal co n d it i on of t h e

bond. Even then, t he d i strict court may later s e t aside the f orfeiture. H ere, Rodri g uez

appeared in t he dis t r ict court as re q uired b u t v i olated o ther condit i ons of the b o n d

. By

signing an arrest w a rr a nt u nder K

. S.A. 2 020 S upp. 22

- 2 8 07(2), t he d i strict c o urt may

revoke a def

e ndan t ' s b o nd for a vi o lation o ther than fail i n g to app e ar. Issuance of the arrest

warra n t effects t he bond re v ocation. B u t the d istri c t court "sha l l forth w ith set a n e w bond"

as r e quired by K .S.A. 20 2 0 Supp. 22

- 2 8 02 that go v erns se t ting a bond at a defendan t ' s first

appea r ance. So K

. S.A. 2 020 S upp. 22

- 2 8 07(2) a p pli e s here, and t he statutory l a nguage

su g gests the d i strict c o urt s hould hold some sort o f a hearing if for no other reason than to

c o nsider a n e w bond. See State v. A n guian o

, No. 100,717, 2009 W L

3082586, a t *6 (K a n. A pp. 2009) ( unpubl i shed opinion). The dis t rict c ourt ' s d ecision on

setting a n e w bond pre s umably w o uld be i nfo r med, at lea s t in part, by the reasons for

(and the val i dity of) the revocation of the o r ig i nal bond.

More broa d ly, an a p p e ar a nce bond offers a d e fendant co n ditional re l ease from

incarceration and, th e r e fore, impli c ates a li b er t y interest. T he Due Pr o cess Clause of the

Fourteenth Amen d me n t to the U n ited Sta t es C onstituti o n affords ind i viduals the right to

be heard to a vert a w r o n gful depr i vation o f a p rotected pr o perty ri g ht or liberty i nterest as

the result of some gov e rnment act i on. State v. Gonzale z

, 57 Kan. Ap p

. 2d 618, 6 23, 457

P.3d 938 ( 2019). The f

orm of the process due is shaped b y the r i ght o r interest a t stake.

57 Kan. A pp. 2d 6 18, S yl. ¶ 2. The United Sta t es Supreme Court has r ecognized t h at

consti t uti o nal due pro c ess pro t ect i ons, i n c lud i ng a heari n g

, attach t o t he revocat i o n of

probation a nd paro l e as postsente n cing fo r ms of conditi o nal relea s e. See Gagn o n v.

Scarpelli

, 4 11 U

. S. 77 8

, 782, 93 S. Ct. 1 756, 3 6 L. Ed. 2d 656 ( 1 973) (probation5

revocation); Morri s sey v. Brewe r

, 408 U

. S. 4 7 1, 489, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2 d 484

(1972) (pa r ole revoc a t i on).

It ' s not much o f an inc r emental st e p to con c l u de the revoc a tion of a p resentencing

appearance b ond req u i r es some fo r m of c o nsti t utional due process and likely inc l udes a

hearing fol l owing t he r evocation t r iggered by the issuance of an ar r e s t warrant u n der

K.S.A. 2 2

- 2807( 2 ). See United St a tes v. S aler

n o

, 481 U

. S. 739, 75 1

- 5 2, 107 S. Ct. 20 9 5,

95 L. Ed. 2 d 697 ( 198 7 ) (defendan t ' s ri g ht to h earing with lawyer on c onditions of

pretrial det e ntion u n der federal Bail Reform A ct of 1984 satisfies Due Process C lause of

Fifth Am e ndmen t ); J

o sh J. v. C o mmon w ealt h

, 478 Ma s s. 716, 72 2

- 2 3, 89 N.E

. 3d 1123

(2018) (b o nd revoc a ti o n impl i cat e s const i tuti o nal due pro c ess); S t ate v. Burgin s

, 464

S.W.3d 2 9 8, 308

- 09 ( T enn. 2015) (same); 4 L aFav e

, Israe l

, King, a n d Kerr, Cr i m. Proc.

§ 12.3(g) ( 4th ed. 2 02 0 ) (bond re v ocation h ea r ing must c onform to p r ocedural due

process re q uiremen t s). But our a s sumpt i on of t hose due p r ocess p r ot e ctions still does n ' t

get Rodri g uez to t h e w i nner ' s c i rcle.

The record i ndicates R odriguez n e ver requ e s t ed a hearing on the bo n d revocation or

for reins t atement of an appearance bond. A criminal de f endant m a y w a ive or f

orfeit even

cons t i t utional rig h ts. S ee Sta t e v. Ja m e s

, 309 Kan. 1 280, S yl. ¶ 5, 443 P. 3 d 1063 (2019)

(rec o gnizing w a iver of con s titut i o n al r i ght); State v. Jone s

, 2 8 7 Kan. 55 9

, Syl. ¶ 4,

197 P.3d 815 (2 0 08) ( r ecognizing f orfeiture o f constitut i onal ri g ht); s ee also Uni t ed

States v. B r asher

, 962 F.3d 254, 271 (7 t h Cir. 2020) (rec o gnizing de f endant ' s dilato r y

asserti o n of const i t uti o nal rig h t m ay result in waiver or f o rfeit u re). R odriguez m a y have

done so he r e. But a ppe l late courts s hould be c a utious in f i nding waiv e rs of const i tutional

rights and e special l y c h ary to declare forfeit ur es of them. Nonet h ele s s, even gi v i ng

Rodriguez t he ben e f

it o f those rest r aints, w e f i nd no g r o u nds for reve r sing the d i strict

court.6

The errone o us depr i va t ion of mo s t const i tuti o nal righ t s may be c ons i dered

harmless in the ab s en c e of demo n strable p re j udice. See S tate v. Wa r d

, 292 Ka n

. 541,

Syl. ¶¶ 5

- 6, 256 P

. 3d 8 01 (2011); see also Sta t e v. Lower y

, 308 K an. 1183, 12 1 5, 427

P.3d 865 ( 2018) ( a ckn o wledging c onstitu t ional errors typi c ally s u bject to review f or

harmlessn e ss). Her e

, a s suming as we have that Rodriguez had a d ue p rocess right to a

hearing on t he revo c at i on of her b ond and that she did n ' t wa i ve or fo r feit that ri g ht, any

error st i ll w ould be su b

ject to revi e w for ha r m l essness. E ven und e r t h e rigoro u s standard

outlined in Ward f

or a s sessing c o nstitut i onal e rror, we ca n not see ho w Rodrig u ez'

sentencing would have been any di f ferent. S ee 292 Kan. 541, S y l. ¶ 6

. That ' s because

both Rodr i guez a n d her lawyer ad m itted the b o nd violati o n duri n g the sentencing

hearing. In her own st a tement to t he distr i ct c o urt at the s e ntencin g

, R odriguez s o ught to

turn the vi o lation a nd t he revocati o n to her a d vantage by s u gges t ing she finally

appreciated t he hold m ethamphet a mine had e xerted over her and h ad defeated her

dependency during her time in jail. Those con c essions ne c essarily ob v iate any fai l ure of

the State to prove Rod r iguez' b ond vi o lation at some earlier due p r oc e ss hearing t hat

should ha v e been h e ld but never w as.

In short, t h e prem i ses o n which R odriguez res t s her argu m ent that the State failed

to honor i t s com m itm e nts under t he plea a gr e ement do n ot hold up. I n turn, the State d i d

not impe r missibly aba n don those c ommi t men t s. We find no error i n t he sentenci n g

proceedings and, t h ere f ore, affirm t he distr i ct court ' s decisio n

.

Affirmed.