Opinion ID: 2637722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the sentencing court violate k.s.a. 22-4513 when it failed to consider on the record richardson's ability to pay attorney fees and the financial burden those fees would impose on him?

Text: The trial court ordered Richardson to pay the Board of Indigents' Defense Services (BIDS) attorney fees in the amount of $500 as partial reimbursement for the cost of providing a court-appointed attorney. The court made no findings on the record regarding Richardson's financial resources, his ability to pay the fees, and the burden that the reimbursement would impose on him. The State concedes that this was reversible error, and the Court of Appeals, 40 Kan.App.2d at 619, 194 P.3d 599, remanded the case for a determination of Richardson's financial circumstances and compliance with K.S.A. 22-4513 and State v. Robinson, 281 Kan. 538, 132 P.3d 934 (2006). This is the correct result. K.S.A. 22-4513(a) requires that all expenditures made by the BIDS to provide counsel and other defense services to a convicted defendant are to be taxed against the defendant. The statute further requires that [i]n determining the amount and method of payment of such sum, the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of such sum will impose. (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 22-4513(b); Robinson, 281 Kan. at 546-47, 132 P.3d 934; see also State v. Davis 283 Kan. 569, 585-86, 158 P.3d 317 (2007) (reversing trial court on issue of BIDS attorney fees because it made no explicit, on-the-record finding at the original assessment of BIDS fees against Davis regarding his ability to pay the fees or the financial burden the fees would impose). Failure to consider those factors on the record require that the order for reimbursement of BIDS attorney fees be vacated and the case be remanded for compliance with K.S.A. 22-4513. See State v. Scaife, 286 Kan. 614, Syl. ¶ 6, 186 P.3d 755 (2008). Because we reverse the conviction of felony fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, Richardson's additional issue relating to Apprendi and his sentence to the high-end of the sentencing guidelines grid box is moot. But see State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, Syl. ¶¶ 5-6, 190 P.3d 207 (2008).