Opinion ID: 2543558
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction to Impose Sentence

Text: K.S.A. 22-3424(c) provides: If the verdict or finding is guilty, judgment shall be rendered and sentence pronounced without unreasonable delay, allowing adequate time for the filing and disposition of post-trial motions and for completion of such presentence investigation as the court may require. (Emphasis added.) In Kansas, sentencing is strictly controlled by statute. State v. Osbey, 238 Kan. 280, 288, 710 P.2d 676 (1985). The following are the authorized dispositions in sentencing an individual: (1) Commit the defendant to the custody of the secretary of corrections... or ... to jail for the term provided by law; (2) impose the fine applicable to the offense; (3) release the defendant on probation ...; (4) assign the defendant to a community correctional services program ...; (5) assign the defendant to a conservation camp ...; (6) assign the defendant to a house arrest program ...; (7) order the defendant to attend and satisfactorily complete an alcohol or drug education or training program ...; (8) order the defendant to repay the amount of any reward paid ..., repay the amount of any costs and expenses incurred by any law enforcement agency in the apprehension of the defendant..., or repay the amount of any public funds utilized by a law enforcement agency to purchase controlled substances from the defendant during the investigation ...; (9) order the defendant to pay the administrative fee ...; (10) order the defendant to pay a domestic violence special program fee ...; (11) impose any appropriate combination [of these dispositions]; or (12) suspend imposition of sentence in misdemeanor cases. K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 21-4603d(a). At the time Campbell was sentenced, none of the authorized dispositions allowed a judge to intentionally or inadvertently fail to impose one of the statutory dispositions. See Osbey, 238 Kan. at 288. We note that when a defendant is convicted on several counts, a single judgment should be pronounced declaring the full measure of punishment to be imposed for all offenses. Osbey, 238 Kan. at 287; State v. Woodbury, 133 Kan. 1, 2, 298 Pac. 794 (1931). Campbell contends that when the district court improperly suspended imposition of a felony sentence, it later lacked jurisdiction to impose sentence on November 30, 2000, because sentence on the suspended felony counts was not imposed without unreasonable delay. The State asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Campbell's appeal, pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4721(c), because he is appealing from a presumptive sentence, and that any delay in sentencing was agreed to by Campbell when he entered into the sentencing agreement and that under these circumstances Campbell was sentenced within a reasonable time. Whether a court has jurisdiction over a matter is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. State v. Jacques, 270 Kan. 173, 191, 14 P.3d 409 (2000). Pursuant to K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 22-3602(f), appeals from sentences imposed under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq., for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1993, are allowed only as provided for in K.S.A. 21-4721 and amendments thereto. See State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657, 658, 999 P.2d 919 (2000). In resolving this jurisdictional question, this court must interpret the provisions of the KSGA in effect at the time the defendant was originally sentenced. Interpretation of the KSGA is a question of law over which the Supreme Court has an unlimited scope of review. State v. Bolin, 266 Kan. 18, 24, 968 P.2d 1104 (1998). K.S.A. 21-4721(c) states: (c) On appeal from a judgment or conviction entered for a felony committed on or after July 1, 1993, the appellate court shall not review: (1) Any sentence that is within the presumptive sentence for the crime; or (2) any sentence resulting from an agreement between the state and the defendant which the sentencing court approves on the record. This court, however, also has jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences at any time. K.S.A. 22-3504. An illegal sentence is `a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction, a sentence which does not conform to the statutory provision, either in the character or the term of the punishment authorized, or a sentence which is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served.' State v. Johnson, 269 Kan. 594, 600, 7 P.3d 294 (2000) (quoting State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 194, 946 P.2d 1375 [1997]). Although Campbell does not specifically claim his sentence was illegal, because Campbell alleges the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose a portion of his sentence, this court has jurisdiction to hear Campbell's appeal as an appeal from an illegal sentence pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504. In addition, Campbell's appeal may also be considered an appeal from an illegal sentence because the district judge failed to impose a specific term for confinement when the judge sentenced Campbell. See Osbey, 238 Kan. at 280 (where defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and unlawful possession of firearm and sentence on the possession charge was not imposed until a year after sentence on the murder charge, defendant's original sentence was illegal because a specific term for confinement was not imposed at sentencing). Campbell cites to Mintie v. Biddle, 15 F.2d 931 (8th Cir. 1926), a federal circuit court case out of Kansas, where after the defendant pled guilty the case was continued without imposition or entry of an order. Extrinsic oral evidence revealed that the sentence was withheld because the government desired to use the defendant as a witness against a codefendant. Over 2½ years later, the defendant was subpoenaed to appear as a witness against a codefendant. After the codefendant pled guilty, the defendant was sentenced. The defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court denied the writ, holding that the delay between plea and sentencing occurred by the defendant's consent. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the sentencing court lost jurisdiction to impose sentence because sentencing had been indefinitely postponed. 15 F.2d at 933. The Mintie court also held that consent of the defendant to the postponement of the sentence could not cure a lack of jurisdiction because jurisdiction was lost when the sentence was postponed indefinitely. 15 F.2d at 932. The decision in Mintie, however, was not followed by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Aderhold, 288 U.S. 206, 77 L.Ed. 702, 53 S.Ct. 325 (1933). In that case, the Supreme Court recognized the weight of authority at the time favored the permanent suspension of a sentence as being void and resulting in a loss of jurisdiction by the court. However, the Supreme Court held that because a defendant may demand that sentence be imposed, a defendant consents to the delay in the absence of such a request. 288 U.S. at 210. See also Zerbst v. Nahas, 67 F.2d 742 (10th Cir. 1933) (where defendant was sentenced over 2 years after his release following a plea, the court did not lose jurisdiction to impose sentence because defendant never requested sentence to be imposed). In People v. Drake, 61 N.Y.2d 359, 474 N.Y.S.2d 276, 462 N.E.2d 376 (1984) a case involving an unexplained 39-month delay in sentencing, New York's highest court reasoned that whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is warranted depends upon both the length of the delay and the reasons for it. Generally, where the delay is long and unexplained, the courts will hold it unreasonable [citations omitted]. Conversely, where the delay is not protracted and plausible reasons are offered to explain it, the courts hold that it is not unreasonable. When there has been an extended delay and there are plausible reasons for it, the various factors involved must be balanced. 61 N.Y.2d at 366-67. New York law assumes the defendant has been prejudiced by unreasonable delay and does not assume consent if the defendant does not demand that sentence be imposed. 61 N.Y.2d at 367. The State maintains this court has previously declined to find a loss of jurisdiction to sentence a defendant under facts similar to this case. In Osbey, the sentencing court failed to sentence the defendant on one of the two counts of which she was convicted. One year later, the defendant was sentenced on the remaining count, with the sentence ordered to run concurrent with her life sentence. The Osbey court determined the error was inadvertent and not prejudicial and upheld the sentence on the second count. The failure of the judge to impose a specific term when sentencing was held to be an illegal sentence. The Osbey court also held that [w]here a person convicted of a crime has never been legally sentenced, a proper sentence may later be imposed. 238 Kan. at 288. See also State v. Fennell, 218 Kan. 170, 178, 542 P.2d 686 (1975) (a void sentence may be corrected by imposition of valid one), and Richardson v. Hand, 182 Kan. 326, 329, 320 P.2d 837 (1958) (a void sentence may be changed to a valid sentence without violating the rule that when a valid judgment and sentence have been entered, the court has no jurisdiction after the sentence has been executed to set aside or impose a new sentence). Applying the rationale of Osbey, the district court had jurisdiction to sentence Campbell on the suspended counts. Campbell's original sentence was illegal because the court did not impose sentence for a definite term of confinement. Campbell could have demanded to be sentenced on these additional counts at the first sentencing, and his failure to do so constituted consent to the delay. Thus, the district court had jurisdiction to impose sentence on the remaining counts. In addition, Campbell agreed to the delay in imposing his sentence, and he received nothing more than what he had bargained for in entering into the sentencing agreement.