Opinion ID: 2637619
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: State v. Scribner

Text: Without analysis, the Court of Appeals agreed that the provisions of K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-4611(c)(8) required a hearing prior to the extension of probation for failure to complete restitution payments within the original probation term. 30 Kan. App. 2d at 858. The Court noted that [s]ubsection (c)(8) specifically requires a `modification hearing and a judicial finding of necessity' for extensions of the probation. The Court of Appeals engaged in no analysis of the controlling statute, K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-4611, for the Court of Appeals decided that the district court had no jurisdiction to extend Scribner's probation with or without a hearing. The Court of Appeals noted that Scribner was first placed on probation February 2, 1995, with his term ending February 2, 2000. The Court further noted that the extension of his probation for the payment of restitution was entered August 28, 20006 months and 26 days too late and without a hearing. 30 Kan. App. 2d at 858. The record however undermines such a conclusion. Scribner's 36 months' probation began February 2, 1995. On May 17, 1996, his probation was revoked and extended for 36 months. Again, on October 24, 1997, his probation was revoked and extended for another 36 months to end October 24, 2000. The order appealed from extending his probation until restitution was paid in full was entered August 28, 2000, approximately 2 months before his probationary period was to end October 24, 2000. Thus, the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the order extending his probation was untimely is in error. Having concluded that the district court retained jurisdiction over both Gordon and Scribner, and that the orders entered by the district court in both cases were entered within valid extensions of their respective probationary periods, the question remains as to whether in the absence of hearings the final extensions of their probations until restitution was paid in full were within the law. More specifically, the question raised by reason of the Court of Appeals' decision is whether the district court's final probationary extensions of Gordon and Scribner are contrary to the hearing provisions of K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-4611(c)(8).