Title: State v. Holt
Citation: 255 Kan. 416, 874 P.2d 1183
Docket Number: 69,581
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 27, 1994

255 Kan. 416 (1994)
874 P.2d 1183
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
STANTON HOLT, Appellee.
No. 69,581

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 27, 1994.
Chris E. Biggs, county attorney, argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellant.
Benjamin C. Wood, special appellate defender, argued the cause, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HOLMES, C.J.:
This is an appeal by the State of Kansas, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3), upon a question reserved by the prosecution after defendant was paroled by the district court of Geary County. The question reserved as set forth in the docketing statement asks: "Did the trial court error [sic] in finding that victims have no right to notice or to be present at a sua sponte hearing concerning granting a defendant probation?"
The facts are undisputed. On February 17, 1993, Stanton Holt, the defendant, entered a plea of no contest to one count of theft, a class A misdemeanor, contrary to K.S.A. 21-3701(d), for possession of a watch stolen during a residential burglary. In addition to the plea, the defendant agreed to make full restitution to the burglary victims for additional stolen property which had not been recovered. In exchange for the defendant's plea and agreement *417 to make restitution, the State dropped the remaining felony charges filed against the defendant. The court accepted the plea agreement, ordered a presentence report, and set sentencing for March 9, 1993.
During the defendant's sentencing hearing on March 9, 1993, the defendant's counsel argued for probation, while the State recommended a maximum sentence. Additionally, the judge allowed the crime victim, Mrs. Sylvia Ehlers, to make a statement to the court. Following these statements, the court sentenced the defendant to one year in the Geary County Detention Center, with credit for time already served. Additionally, the court assessed the defendant with both court costs and full restitution. The court also noted that it would consider the defendant's probation request at a later date.
On March 25, 1993, the district court, sua sponte, called a hearing to consider the defendant's earlier request for probation. At the hearing, the court stated it had intended to release the defendant after 90 days had been served, but at the time of sentencing the defendant had served only 80 days in the county jail. The judge stated that as the defendant had been incarcerated more than 90 days, he was now prepared to release the defendant under certain conditions.
The State objected to the court's proceeding, stating that the victims had not been notified of the hearing. The State maintained that the Bill of Rights for Victims of Crime Act, K.S.A. 74-7333; K.S.A. 74-7335; and Art. 15, § 15 of the Kansas Constitution afforded the victims the right to be informed of and to be present at the hearing. The court disagreed, stating that the court was not required to hold any public hearing regarding whether to grant the defendant probation and that it called a hearing only after the State objected to the court's decision to place the defendant on probation. The court further stated that because there was no right to a public hearing, notification of the victims was not required.
The court placed the defendant on probation for a period of 18 months under specified conditions. Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3), the State timely filed a notice of appeal.
*418 K.S.A. 74-7333 the Bill of Rights for Victims of Crime Act, was first enacted in 1989. The two relevant statutes in effect at the time of the proceedings herein read as follows:
(A) Preliminary hearing;
(B) trial;
(C) sentencing;
(D) sentencing modifications;
(F) expungement hearing.
Both of the statutes quoted above were amended effective July 1, 1993; however, the amendments are not applicable to the issue now before the court. When used in this opinion, K.S.A. 74-7333 and 74-7335 will refer to the statutes in effect at the time of the events involved in this appeal.
On November 3, 1992, the voters of the State of Kansas adopted Art. 15, § 15 of the Kansas Constitution, which reads:
Although Art. 15, § 15 was adopted by the voters in 1992, it appears that the constitutional provision does not provide any greater rights than those already granted by statute.
The sole issue before this court is whether the victim of a crime is entitled to notice under K.S.A. 74-7335 and Art. 15, § 15 when the district court grants a misdemeanor defendant a parole from a partially served jail sentence.
Throughout this entire proceeding, counsel for the parties and the trial court consistently refer to "probation," when the correct terminology is parole. The respective terms "probation" and "parole" are properly defined in K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4602(c) and (d) as follows:
In the factual recitations set forth herein, we have used the term "probation" to be consistent with the record on appeal and the proceedings in the trial court, although the appropriate term is "parole."
Although K.S.A. 74-7333(a) states that "victims of crime shall have the following rights," there is nothing in the statute that actually creates any mandatory rights for crime victims, and the provisions are merely directive or permissive. We also note there *421 are no provisions for enforcement of the suggested rights and no sanctions imposed if they are not followed. K.S.A. 74-7335(a) provides: "The victim of a crime or the victim's family shall be notified of the right to be present at any public hearing where the accused or the convicted person has the right to appear and be heard." (Emphasis added.) Subsection (b) of the statute defines "public hearing" to include the preliminary hearing, trial, sentencing, sentencing modification, public comment sessions pursuant to K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 22-3717, and expungement hearing.
Instead of focusing on K.S.A. 74-7335(a), the relevant language of the victim's notification statute, and the question actually before the court, the State relies upon case law addressing the issue of sentence modification for convicted felons pursuant to K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4603. In doing so, the State apparently equates parole of a misdemeanant, as defined in K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4602(d), with sentence modification in an attempt to bring its arguments within the definition of a public hearing as stated in K.S.A. 74-7335(b). In State v. Pierce, 246 Kan. 183, 787 P.2d 1189 (1990), the defendant contended his rights to counsel and to a hearing on his motion to modify his sentence had been violated when the trial court ruled upon the motion without a hearing. This court stated:
The court went on to state that "whether a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a K.S.A. 21-4603(3) motion [to modify sentence] is discretionary with the trial court based upon the record before the court at the time." 246 Kan. at 187.
In a letter submitted by the State after oral argument, and ostensibly in answer to questions posed by members of this court, the State dwells at length upon, and cites numerous authorities *422 pertaining to, the question of whether granting probation to a felon is a sentence modification under K.S.A. 74-7335(b)(1)(D) and Art. 15, § 15 of the Kansas Constitution. None of the authorities cited and relied upon pertain to the narrow issue before us of whether a public hearing, with the right of a defendant to appear and be heard, is required when a trial judge determines, sua sponte, to grant a convicted misdemeanant a parole. Regardless of what may be the interpretation of Art. 15, § 15 and the current crime victims bill of rights statutes as they pertain to probation of felons, we do not find the State's argument or authorities persuasive on the issue here.
In the present case, the trial court, in a somewhat heated exchange with the county attorney, stated:
....
The county attorney responded in relevant part:
We agree that the trial court was legally correct. We also agree with the State's observation that the issue was "obviously [within] the Court's discretion." There is nothing in our constitutional, statutory, or case law which requires a public hearing or holds that "the accused or the convicted person has the right to appear and be heard" at the granting of a parole to a misdemeanant. The granting of a parole to a misdemeanor defendant who has served a portion of the jail sentence imposed is purely discretionary with the trial court as is the holding of any hearing in connection therewith. No abuse of discretion has been shown. The State's appeal is without merit.
*423 We do recognize, however, that a trial court, in exercising its discretion in paroling a misdemeanant, would be well advised to keep in mind the spirit of the Bill of Rights for Victims of Crime Act and Art. 15, § 15 of the Kansas Constitution. While requiring public hearings and notice to crime victims in all cases involving parole of a misdemeanant would be counterproductive, the right of the public in general, and victims in particular, to open access to the courts is to be encouraged. We recommend that trial judges carefully consider holding a public hearing and notifying crime victims in cases where the court deems it advisable and when it can be accomplished without undue burden on the judicial system.
The appeal is denied.