1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 125,046

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

DAVID ANTHONY CALLAHAN,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Leavenworth District Court; GERALD R. KUCKELMAN, judge. Opinion filed 

December 23, 2022. Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6820(g) and 

(h).

Before MALONE, P.J., HURST and COBLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM: David Anthony Callahan appeals his jail sentence following his 

convictions for interference with law enforcement and battery on a law enforcement 

officer. Callahan argues that the district court abused its discretion in two ways: the 

length of his concurrent sentences on these two offenses, and that the sentences are to run 

consecutive to those in two prior cases. This court granted Callahan's motion for 

summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.014A (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 

48).
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Callahan pled no contest to one count of interference with law enforcement and 

one count battery on a law enforcement officer—both class A misdemeanors. See K.S.A. 

2021 Supp. 21-5904(a)(3), (b)(5)(B); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5413(c)(1)(B), (g)(3)(A). 

The district court imposed a 12-month sentence on each count and ordered them to run 

concurrent with each other. The district court also ordered the sentence in this case to run 

consecutive to Callahan's two prior cases.

Callahan filed a timely notice of appeal.

Analysis

Callahan first argues regarding the length of his sentence(s). He claims the district 

court erred when it imposed a jail term of 12 months for the offense of interference with 

law enforcement, a class A nonperson misdemeanor. Callahan also contends that the 

district court erred when it imposed a jail term of 12 months for the offense of battery on 

a law enforcement officer, a class A person misdemeanor. The potential term of 

confinement for these class A misdemeanor offenses is outlined in K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-

6602(a)(1).

Statutory interpretation presents a question of law over which appellate courts 

have unlimited review. State v. Stoll, 312 Kan. 726, 736, 480 P.3d 158 (2021).

Under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6602(a)(1), a district court is authorized to impose a 

sentence of up to one year for a class A misdemeanor ("shall not exceed one year"). And 

as Callahan acknowledges in his motion, a district court's sentence within statutory limits 

will not be disturbed on appeal unless the appellant can show the district court abused its 
3

discretion. See State v. Moser, 299 Kan. 1, 3, 319 P.3d 1253 (2014) (applying an abuse of 

discretion standard to review non-Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act sentences).

A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or 

unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact. State 

v. Levy, 313 Kan. 232, 237, 485 P.3d 605 (2021). The burden to show that the district 

court abused its discretion rests on Callahan. See State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630, 635, 479 

P.3d 167 (2021).

Callahan fails to establish that the district court's decision to impose a 12-month 

sentence for either of these class A misdemeanor offenses was arbitrary, fanciful, or 

unreasonable or that it was based on an error of law or an error of fact. See Levy, 313 

Kan. at 237.

Second, Callahan argues that the district court erred when it ran his sentence 

consecutive to two of his prior cases. Generally, whether a sentence should run 

consecutive to or concurrent with another sentence is within the sound discretion of the 

district court. State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 1126, 1138, 289 P.3d 76 (2012).

Again, Callahan fails to establish that the district court's decision to run his 

sentence consecutive to his prior cases was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. Nor does 

Callahan establish that the district court's decision was based on an error of fact or an 

error of law.

Affirmed.