Opinion ID: 2633789
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Remand to Cite Reasons for Departure

Text: This analysis raises the question of whether upon remand it is appropriate for the sentencing court to clarify the reasons for departure or whether the initial failure dooms Blackmon's departure motion. Kansas precedent shows that remand for clarification of departure reasons has been allowed with respect to upward departures. In State v. Peterson, 25 Kan.App.2d 354, Syl. ¶ 2, 964 P.2d 695, rev. denied 266 Kan. 1114 (1998), the Court of Appeals held, as matter of first impression, when the sentencing court fails to meet the requirements for the imposition of a departure sentence, on remand the sentencing court may cite appropriate reasons justifying the imposition of a departure sentence and impose such a sentence subject to the usual review process. In reaching this holding, the Court of Appeals panel rejected Peterson's argument that the sentencing court's failure to give substantial and compelling reasons to depart at the original sentencing hearing should mean that on remand the sentencing court was allowed to sentence him only within the presumptive sentencing range. The panel noted: Peterson cites no statutory or case law authority to support his contentions. We believe there is none. 25 Kan.App.2d at 357, 964 P.2d 695. The panel observed that the evidence indicated the sentencing court had reasons for departure but simply did not state these reasons on the record at the initial sentencing hearing. The panel found no reason to deny the sentencing court the opportunity to state reasons for departure on remand, noting that many cases have appeared before us where the trial court has remedied an earlier failure to comply with the appropriate procedure. We see no difficulty with this process. 25 Kan.App.2d at 358, 964 P.2d 695; see also State v. French, 26 Kan.App.2d 24, 27, 977 P.2d 281 (1999) (rejecting stated reason for departure but concluding that upon remand the sentencing court would not be precluded from considering additional, appropriate reasons that would justify the imposition of a departure sentence). In a similar situation, in State v. Garcia, 274 Kan, 708, 56 P.3d 797 (2002), this court agreed with the defendant's contention that the sentencing court failed to make adequate findings on the record to support imposition of a prison term based on the fact that the defendant's crimes were gang related. The sentencing court neither mentioned the applicable statute in effect, K.S.A.2001 Supp. 21-4704a(k) (gang-related felonies; presumed imprisonment), nor made a specific finding that the defendant's crimes were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. 274 Kan. at 713, 56 P.3d 797. The Garcia court pointed to the statutory requirement that, the judge shall state on the record at the time of sentencing the substantial and compelling reasons for departure. See K.S.A.2006 Supp. 21-4716(a). The State argued that the facts needed to determine whether the provisions of K.S.A.2001 Supp. 21-4704a(k) applied were obvious from the record. The Garcia court was not impressed: This suggestion is of little comfort to a reviewing court. 274 Kan. at 717, 56 P.3d 797. Since the sentencing court failed to make the required findings on the record, the court vacated the sentences and concluded that upon remand the district court is given the opportunity to make the proper findings and reimpose the same sentences if appropriate. 274 Kan. at 717, 56 P.3d 797. These, and similar cases relate to upward departures. We can discern no reason why the same policy would not apply to downward departures. Consequently, when a sentencing court fails to state substantial and compelling reasons for a downward departure from a presumptive sentence on the record at an initial sentencing hearing and as a result the sentence is vacated on appeal, upon remand the sentencing court may cite appropriate reasons justifying the imposition of a downward departure sentence and may impose such a sentence subject to the usual review process. In the case at hand, the limited record available on appeal indicates the sentencing court may have had additional reasons for departure but did not clearly state these reasons on the record at the sentencing hearing. Consequently, rather than reverse the sentence as did the Court of Appeals panel, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the sentence. On remand, if the sentencing court determines there are reasons for departure other than the court's disagreement with the jury's determination that the State established an element of the crime of conviction, the sentencing court may impose a departure sentence, which then would be subject to appeal under K.S.A. 21-4721.