Opinion ID: 2523559
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Forgery Case

Text: The two counts of forgery in case No. 05CR553I were level 8 nondrug crimes. With a criminal history score of E, Bonner's conviction fell into a presumptive probation block on the sentencing guidelines nondrug grid. The plain language of K.S.A.2005 Supp. 21-4603d(g) requires the district court to consider alternative nonprison sanctions before imposing a dispositional departure for a defendant whose conviction falls into a nonprison grid block. Key to this provision's application is the requirement that a prison sentence must be a dispositional departure. This was not so in Bonner's forgery case. Under the facts, prison was not a dispositional departure because the two counts of forgery were committed while Bonner was on felony bond. K.S.A.2005 Supp. 21-4603d(f) provides: When a new felony is committed while the offender is on release for a felony pursuant to the provisions of article 28 of chapter 22 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, a new sentence may be imposed pursuant to the consecutive sentencing requirements of K.S.A. 21-4608, and amendments thereto, and the court may sentence the offender to imprisonment for the new conviction, even when the new crime of conviction otherwise presumes a nonprison sentence. In this event, imposition of a prison sentence for the new crime does not constitute a departure.  (Emphasis added.) This provision clearly gives the district court the discretion to impose prison when probation is presumed if an offender commits a new crime while on felony bond. And while the decision is discretionary, if the court chooses to impose a prison sentence for the new crime, the sentence does not constitute a departure. This is exactly what occurred in Bonner's forgery case. Moreover, no other circumstance identified in K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-4603d(f) applies. Consequently, the absence of a dispositional departure means that the alternative nonprison sanction provision of K.S.A.2005 Supp. 21-4603d(g) does not apply. Thus, the district court did not err in failing to consider alternative nonprison sanctions in Bonner's forgery case, and we agree with the Court of Appeals' reasoning on this point.