Title: State v. Hilton
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 102256
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 2015

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
Nos. 102,256 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   102,257 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
 
Appellee, 
v. 
 
HEATHER PAGE HILTON, 
Appellant. 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
 
Because answering the question posed on petition for review would require this 
court to reach and decide a predicate question on the authorization for consecutive 
probation periods that is not contested by the parties, and because the defendant has 
served her sentence, this court vacates the Court of Appeals panel's decision and 
dismisses this appeal.   
 
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 49 Kan. App. 2d 586, 311 P.3d 1161 (2013). 
Appeal from Ellis District Court; THOMAS L. TOEPFER, judge. Opinion filed May 22, 2015. Appeal 
dismissed.   
 
Heather Cessna, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for 
appellant.   
 
Thomas J. Drees, county attorney, argued the cause, and Kristafer R. Ailslieger, deputy solicitor 
general, Steve Six, former attorney general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the briefs for 
appellee.   
 
 
2 
 
 
 
 
Per Curiam:  This court accepted this case on the petition for review filed by 
defendant Heather Page Hilton for the specific purpose of deciding whether both the first 
and second of Hilton's two consecutive 12-month probation terms could be revoked as a 
result of a violation that occurred during the first 12 months. A panel of our Court of 
Appeals had affirmed the district court's revocation of both of Hilton's probation terms. 
State v. Hilton, 49 Kan. App. 2d 586, 311 P.3d 1161 (2013).   
 
 
On the way to the panel's ruling, the Court of Appeals judges left for another day 
the predicate issue of whether the district judge was empowered to grant consecutive 
probation terms to Hilton in the first place. 49 Kan. App. 2d at 589-90. Judge G. Gordon 
Atcheson expressed some reservation about the existence of such a power in a brief 
concurrence. 49 Kan. App. 2d at 594-95. 
 
 
Earlier, we had effectively compelled the panel to address the merits of the dual 
revocation issue by granting a petition for review on the Court of Appeals' dismissal of 
Hilton's appeal as moot and summarily reversing and remanding the case. State v. Hilton, 
295 Kan. 845, 286 P.3d 871 (2012). Although Hilton had already completed service of 
the prison terms underlying the consecutive probations, we then believed the dual 
revocation issue to be one of public importance likely to arise in other cases. 295 Kan. at 
851-52. As such, we further believed it to be a worthy exception to application of the 
mootness doctrine. 295 Kan. at 851-52. 
 
 
On closer examination, we have concluded that the Court of Appeals had it right 
in the first place and that this appeal should be dismissed as moot. 
 
 
It is logically and legally impossible to approve or disapprove of the panel's 
rationale in affirming the dual revocation without first addressing whether the district 
judge had the power to grant consecutive probation terms. But it would be unwise to 
3 
 
 
 
decide that predicate question when the parties have not truly set up or argued opposing 
viewpoints and no client's fate hangs in the balance. Here, the parties agreed on the grant 
of consecutive probation terms in the district court, and neither questioned their propriety 
before the Court of Appeals or before this court. Our adversarial system typically 
depends upon committed advocacy to fully explore and expose strengths and weaknesses 
in pro and con arguments on the legal issues that come before us. We will follow the 
typical pattern here and await a more appropriate setting to consider whether a district 
judge may grant consecutive probation terms and, if so, under what circumstances such 
terms may be revoked. 
 
 
The Court of Appeals decision is vacated. This appeal is dismissed.