1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
No s
. 124,049 124,053
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appell ee ,
V

. B ILLY D ARYL J ACKSON , Appellant

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; E RIC W ILLIAMS , judge. Opinion filed May 27 , 20 22

. Affirmed.

Peter Maharry , of Kansas Appellate Defender O ffi ce, for appellant.

Lance J. Gillett , assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett , district attorney, and Derek Schmidt , attorney general, for appellee.

Before S CHROEDER , P.J., G REEN and G ARDNER , JJ.

P ER C URIAM : Billy Daryl Jackson appeals the district court's order on remand for resentencing , find ing he c ould not begin serving his postimprisonment supervision for the two felony DUI convictions in these cases until he completed his prison sentence s in two unrelated felony cases. We find the district court correctly applie d K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8

- 1567(b)(3) . Accordi ngly, we affirm.2 F ACTS

Jackson entered guilty pleas to one count of felony DUI in each of two cases

— 18CR2488 and 19CR74. T he State then dismissed a number of other charges in both

cases
. In 18CR2488, Jackson was sentenced to 12 months in jail with postimprisonment supervision to begin after 90 days in jail . In 19CR74, the district court imposed a consecutive sentence of 12 months in jail with postimprisonment supervision to begin after 90 days. In both cases, the district court authorized Jackson to satisfy the 90

- day jail term in a work release facility after serving 120 total hours in jail.

Jackson's work release placement did not go well. A warrant was issued based on Jackson failing to return to the work release facility, and Jackson was arrest ed two months later. Jackson admitted to the violation , and the district court ordered him to serve his original sentences. But there was some confusion about what the district court intended. Jackson appealed , and the State agreed the case should be reman ded for resentencing, so another panel of our court issued an order remanding for resentencing. At the remand hearing, the district court clarified it intended for Jackson to serve the 90

- day jail term in each case before beginning his postimprisonment sup ervision. However, the district court determined , by the time of the hearing, Jackson had already satisfied those sentences as he had been in jail to that point. But a dispute arose as to when Jackson was to begin his postimprisonment supervision because J ackson had also been sentenced to terms of imprisonment

— 23 months in total

— in two unrelated cases, 19CR3117 and 19CR3381 , consecutive to his sentences in the present cases.

Jackson argued his postimprisonment supervision should have begun when he completed his jail sentence in 19CR74 on February 24, 2020. The district court disagreed, finding Jackson could not begin serving his postimprisonment supervision for his sentences i n 18CR2488 and 19CR74 until he completed his prison sentences in his other
two cases

. Additional facts are set forth as necessary.3 A NALYSIS

Jackson argues the plain language of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8

- 1567(b)(3) requires his postimprisonment supervision begi n as soon as he completed his 2 consecutive 90

- day jail terms imposed for his 2 felony DUI convictions. Accordingly, his argument presents an issue of statutory interpretation, which is a question of law subject to unlimited review. State v. Stoll , 312 Kan . 726, 736, 480 P.3d 158 (2021)

. However, Jackson acknowledges his argument has been rejected by two prior panels of this court in State v. Baska , No. 121,739, 2020 WL 4380944, at *6 (Kan. App. 2020) (unpublished opinion), and State v. Martinez , No. 117,875 , 2018 WL 4039405, at *6 (Kan. App. 2018) (unpublished opinion).

We find Baska and Martinez are well

- reasoned and properly interpret the plain language of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8

- 1567(b)(3)

. As the Martinez panel noted: " When the statute is read as a whole, it is clear that the Legislature intended the period of post

imprisonment supervision to be served after the terms of imprisonment were served in all consecutive sentences. " 2018 WL 4039405, at *6

. Martinez properly recognized we must not construe the statute in a manner which leads to an absurd result or nullifies the Legislature's intent. See State v. Smith , 311 Kan. 109, 114, 456 P.3d 1004 (2020) ; State v. Keel , 302 Kan. 560, 573

- 74, 357 P.3d 251 (2015)

.

The Martinez panel's reasoning logically interprets the plain language of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8

- 1567(b)(3) , which provides, in relevant part:

"The court shall determine whether the offender, upon release from imprisonment, shall be supervised by community correctional services or court services

. . . . After the term of imprisonment imposed by the court, the person shall be placed on supervision to community correctional services or court services, as determined by the court, for a mandatory one

- year period of supervision, which such period of supervision shall not be reduced. During such supervision, the person shall be required to participate in a4 multidisciplinary model of services for substance use disorders facilitated by a Kansas department for aging and disability services designated care coordination agency to include assessment and, if appropriate, referral to a communi ty bas ed substance use disorder treatment including recovery management and mental health counseling as needed. The multidisciplinary team shall include the designated care coordination agency, the supervision officer, the Kansas department for aging and disabilit y services designated treatment provider and the offender. . . . Any violation of the conditions of such supervision may subject such person to revocation of supervision and imprisonment in jail for the remainder of the period of imprisonment, the remainde r of the supervision period, or any combination or portion thereof."

From the plain language of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8

- 1567(b)(3) , it is clear the term of supervision begins " upon release from imprisonment ." Because Jackson's prison sentences in his two unr elated cases were consecutive to any other sentences, he ha d not been released from imprisonment at the time of resentencing

. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8

- 1567(b)(3) also requires he " be supervised by community correctional services or court services ," which cannot be done while he is in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) serving his other sentences. Further, Jackson is " required to participate in a multidisciplinary model of services for substance use disorders facilitated by a Kansas department for aging and disability services designated care coordination agency to include assessment and, if appropriate, referral to a commun ity ba sed substance use disorder treatment ," which is likewise inconsistent with his imprisonment in KDOC
custo dy on other case s
. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8

- 1567(b)(3).

T he Martinez panel soundly concluded:

"When a DUI offender is placed on post

- imprisonment supervision, the offender is supervised by community correctional services or court services and is required to participate in a multidisciplinary model of services for substance abuse disorders, includin g an assessment and referral to community

- based substance abuse disorder treatment. This requirement could not be met while the DUI offender is serving time in5 jail on another case. . . . After all of the jail time is served, the purpose of placing the off ender in the community under post

- imprisonment supervision then can be realized. " 2018 WL 4039405, at *6

.

The Baska panel adopted the reasoning in Martinez and reject ed Baska's argument his postimprisonment supervision for felony DUI should have begun while he was still serving his misdemeanor jail sentences for transporting an open container and driving without an ignition interlock device. Baska , 2020 WL 4380944, at *5

- 6

. We apply the same reasoning here and reject Jackson's argument. To conclude otherwise would nullify the Legislature's intent and lead to an absurd result

— one this court cannot abide. See Smith , 311 Kan. at 114

. Here, the district court properly concluded K.S .A. 2018 Supp. 8

- 1567(b)(3) d id not allow Jackson to begin serving his postimprisonment supervision until he was released from prison after completing his consecutive sentences.

Affirm ed

.