Opinion ID: 2629584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Intersection with K.S.A. 21-4607

Text: Having determined that the minimum fine set forth in the forgery statute, K.S.A. 21-3710(b)(2)-(4) is mandatory, we turn to how these provisions intersect with K.S.A. 21-4607(3). K.S.A. 21-4607(3) states: In determining the amount and method of payment of a fine, the court shall take into account the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that its payment will impose. Raschke contends that the only possible path to workable harmony, see State v. Hawkins, 285 Kan. 842, 850-53, 176 P.3d 174 (2008), requires grafting K.S.A. 21-4607's requirement for an examination of the defendant's financial circumstances onto the forgery statute, even when the only fine being set is the mandatory minimum. See State v. McGlothlin, 242 Kan. 437, 747 P.2d 1335 (1988). He also urges us to address two earlier Court of Appeals' cases dealing with the mandatory minimum fine in K.S.A. 8-1567 on driving under the influence, State v. Shuster, 17 Kan.App.2d 8, 9, 829 P.2d 925 (1992), and State v. Segovia, 19 Kan.App.2d 493, 872 P.2d 312 (1994). The question of how these two statutes fit together cannot be settled by reference to the plain language of their text. Neither mentions the other, and they conflict as to the mandatory minimum fines under K.S.A. 21-3710(b)(2)-(4). We thus turn to legislative history; canons of construction; and background considerations, including the two Court of Appeals' decisions reconciling analogous provisions. The history of these two enactments is somewhat helpful. Both statutes were originally passed in 1969. See L. 1969, ch. 180, sec. 21-3710 (enacting K.S.A. 21-3710); L. 1969, ch. 180, sec. 21-4607 (enacting K.S.A. 21-4607). At that point, K.S.A. 21-3710 did not provide for mandatory minimum fines for first, second, and third or subsequent forgery convictions. The fine provisions were added in 2001, after four other amendments not relevant to the issue before us. See L. 2001, ch. 186, sec. 1. House and Senate committee notes from 2001 suggest that the legislature wanted to match Kansas' forgery penalties to those from surrounding states, but the lawmakers' discussions focused on a need for mandatory jail time, not mandatory fines. The notes also do not reference the overlay of K.S.A. 21-4607. See 2001 House and Senate Judiciary Committees' notes. The language of K.S.A. 21-4607 has not changed in any relevant part since original enactment. See L. 1986, ch. 123, sec. 8 (adding or assignment to a community correctional services program). K.S.A. 21-3710(b)(2)-(4) is thus the newer of the two statutes and presumably the more recent statement of legislative intent. See State v. Keeley, 236 Kan. 555, 559-60, 694 P.2d 422 (1985). Moreover, construing K.S.A. 21-3710(b)(2)-(4) as the controlling of the two statutes is consistent with our rule of construction that allows the specific to supersede the general. See Keeley, 236 Kan. at 560, 694 P.2d 422. K.S.A. 21-3710(b)(2)-(4) deals specifically with fines for forgery; K.S.A. 21-4607(3) deals with criminal fines generally. Turning to the two Court of Appeals' cases, we note that Shuster distinguished discretionary fines from mandatory fines. The panel stated: Discretionary fines . . . are fines with set limits that a court `may' impose in addition to or instead of incarceration for felonies or misdemeanors. Mandatory fines . . . are fines that are mandatory which `shall' be imposed along with set ranges of confinement. Because the fine imposed was greater than the statutory minimum, i.e., discretionary rather than mandatory, the panel determined that the district judge abused his discretion by failing to abide by the requirements of K.S.A. 21-4607, including subsection (3) on consideration of a defendant's finances. Shuster, 17 Kan. App.2d at 9-10, 829 P.2d 925. Two years later, in State v. Segovia, 19 Kan.App.2d 493, 872 P.2d 312 (1994), another panel of our Court of Appeals stated unequivocally that K.S.A. 21-4607 did not apply when a mandatory minimum fine was imposed under K.S.A. 8-1567(f). Only `[i]f the judge, in his or her discretion, imposes a fine exceeding the mandatory minimum, [must] K.S.A. 21-4607 criteria . . . be taken into consideration.' Segovia, 19 Kan.App.2d at 494, 872 P.2d 312 (quoting Shuster, 17 Kan. App.2d at 9, 829 P.2d 925). We agree with the reasoning of Shuster and Segovia and the most recent Court of Appeals' case examining a mandatory fine for driving under the influence and K.S.A. 21-4607, State v. Wenzel, 39 Kan.App.2d 194, 202-03, 177 P.3d 994 (2008). In Wenzel, the panel said: The specific [DUI] statute here . . . has no provision allowing the district court to waive the fine, so there would be no purpose in making findings about the defendant's ability to pay it. It is only when a court imposes more than the minimum fine. . . that the [sentencing] court is required to consider the defendant's financial resources. Wenzel, 39 Kan.App.2d at 202-03, 177 P.3d 994. The concept of inflexible mandatory minimum fineswhich we have held K.S.A. 21-3710(b)(2)-(4) to be examples ofis incompatible with the malleability inherently injected into fine setting by consideration of defendant's financial circumstances. Should the legislature want to resolve this conflict in favor of consideration of such circumstances when a defendant is convicted of forgery or another crime for which conviction prompts a mandatory minimum fine, it need only amend K.S.A. 21-4607 to state clearly that its subsection (3) overrides any such fine.