1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Nos. 121,728

 121,732

 121,734

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

CITY OF SALINA,

Appellee,

v.

MARSHALL J. MATTHEWS JR.,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Saline District Court; JARED B. JOHNSON, judge. Opinion filed February 28, 2020. 

Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6820(g) and 

(h).

Before GREEN, P.J., HILL and LEBEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Marshall James Matthews Jr. appeals his sentence following his 

convictions for driving with a suspended license and interfering with a law enforcement 

officer. The City of Salina filed for summary disposition, arguing Matthews had not 

raised a substantial question of law on appeal. Matthews filed a response opposing 

summary disposition. We granted the City's motion under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 

7.041A (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). 

On February 27, 2019, Matthews was sentenced in four cases in Salina Municipal 

Court. Matthews appealed all four cases to the trial court. The trial court imposed the 
2

same sentences as the municipal court. Matthews then appealed all four sentences to this 

court. Three of those cases were consolidated and are a part of this appeal. The fourth 

case was not consolidated. That stated, Matthews' argument applies to all cases—that the 

trial court abused its discretion in denying his request to serve a controlling term of 60 

days' imprisonment under electronic monitoring. 

In case No. 2018-CRM-00615, Matthews pleaded no contest to one count of 

driving while suspended and one count of interfering with a law enforcement officer. The 

municipal court found his conviction for driving while suspended was a fifth offense and 

sentenced him to 60 days' imprisonment suspended and a $200 fine. The court also 

sentenced him to 180 days' imprisonment suspended after serving 20 days, a $500 fine, 

and 2 years of unsupervised probation for interfering with a law enforcement officer.

In case No. 2018-TRM-03343, Matthews pleaded no contest to one count of 

driving while suspended. The municipal court found his conviction was a fifth offense 

and sentenced him to 365 days' imprisonment suspended after serving 30 days, a $500 

fine, and 2 years of unsupervised probation.

In case No. 2018-TRM-02708, Matthews pleaded no contest to one count of 

driving while suspended. The municipal court found his conviction was a fifth offense 

and sentenced him to 180 days' imprisonment suspended after serving 20 days, a $500 

fine, and 2 years of unsupervised probation.

In a fourth case that is not a part of this appeal, Matthews pleaded no contest to 

one count of driving while suspended. The municipal court found his conviction was a 

fifth offense and sentenced him to 365 days' imprisonment suspended after serving 60 

days, a $500 fine, and 2 years of unsupervised probation.
3

Matthews appealed his sentences in all four cases to the Saline County District 

Court. At a hearing before the trial court, Matthews did not challenge the length of his 

sentences. He challenged only the way in which his sentence was to be served, asking to 

serve his term of imprisonment under electronic monitoring. He told the court he was 

responsible for caring for his wife and grandchildren. He also suffered from chronic 

migraines, chronic depression, and PTSD. Because he was a veteran, he received 

treatment from the Veterans Administration (VA). He had multiple appointments set up 

at the VA that month, and he had to make those appointments to keep getting benefits. 

Otherwise, he would have to start the process all over again. For those reasons, he asked 

the court to place him on electronic monitoring for 60 days instead of serving them in 

jail.

The City opposed Matthews' request because of the number of convictions he had 

on appeal. It also argued he had a history of failing to appear in those cases. It added that 

the sentences were all within the statutory limits.

The trial court noted that all of Matthews' convictions for driving while suspended 

were fifth offenses. For that reason, the court denied Matthews' request. It explained 

house arrest was for defendants who did not have a history of repeat offenses. It found 

Matthews' municipal court sentences were appropriate and imposed the same. The court 

also clarified Matthews would serve a controlling term of 60 days in jail before starting 

his 2 years of probation, with all sentences running concurrently. Matthews appeals.

On appeal, Matthews argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his 

request to serve his 60 days of imprisonment under electronic monitoring. He claims he 

provided compelling reasons why the court should have granted his request. He argues 

the court failed to consider these reasons and denied his request because of his number of 

prior convictions.
4

Both parties agree this court's standard of review is abuse of discretion, citing 

State v. Redmon, 255 Kan. 220, 223, 873 P.2d 1350 (1994). 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. Ingham, 308 Kan. 1466, 1469, 

430 P.3d 931 (2018). "'A sentence imposed within the statutory guidelines will not be 

disturbed on appeal if it is within the trial court's discretion and not a result of partiality, 

prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive.'" Redmon, 225 Kan. at 223.

Matthews' convictions for driving while suspended fall under Salina City Code 

§ 25-1 and Standard Traffic Ordinance 194, which authorizes a sentence of imprisonment 

not to exceed 1 year, a fine not to exceed $2,500, or both, for a second or subsequent 

offense. His conviction of interfering with a law enforcement officer falls under Salina 

City Code § 25-1 and Uniform Public Offense Code (UPOC) § 7.2(a)(3) (33rd ed. 2016), 

with an authorized sentence of imprisonment not to exceed 1 year, a fine not to exceed 

$2,500, or both. UPOC § 12.1; UPOC § 12.2. Thus, the length of his sentences are within 

statutory limits.

The trial court denied Matthews' request because he had a history of prior 

convictions for driving while suspended. Matthews was also before the court with four 

more convictions for the same offense. While serving 60 days in jail may cause hardship 

for Matthews, a reasonable person could agree with the court's decision to deny his 

request based on the number of convictions he had. His sentences were also not the result 

of partiality, prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive. As a result, we affirm.

Affirmed.