Opinion ID: 2571470
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Phillpot v. Shelton

Text: Finally, reading of the KSGA is consistent with a third case; this case presented facts that were very analogous to Gaudina's situation. In Phillpot v. Shelton, 19 Kan.App.2d 654, 875 P.2d 289, rev. denied 255 Kan. 1003 (1994), a different Court of Appeals panel dealt with an issue similar to the one at hand. Phillpot involved several inmates whose sentences had been converted under the KSGA. These inmates had all been confined, before the time of sentence conversion, for time in excess of the combined imprisonment and postrelease supervision periods of their converted sentences. Thus, they asked to have the time which they served in excess of their presumptive imprisonment sentences credited against the 12-month postrelease supervision period of those sentences. The inmates contended that the time they spent incarcerated under the prior sentencing statutes should apply to satisfy both the prison and postrelease supervision requirements of the KSGA. The Phillpot court held that time spent in prison under a pre-KSGA sentence did not satisfy both the imprisonment and the postrelease supervision portions of a converted KSGA sentence: A reading of the statutes indicates that, under the [Kansas Sentencing] Guidelines [Act], a defendant is to serve a bifurcated sentenceincarceration followed by postrelease supervision. [Citation omitted.] In addition, other than the interplay of good time credit, these two parts are effectively independent from one another. [Citation omitted.] Further, the statutes indicate postrelease time is mandatory and comes after a defendant has been released from incarceration. [Citation omitted.] Because appellants have served only a period of incarceration under their indeterminate sentences, they are subject to postrelease supervision upon their release from incarceration. 19 Kan.App.2d at 664, 875 P.2d 289. The Phillpot court also pointed out that a sentence cannot be increased in length as a result of conversion under the KSGA. 19 Kan.App.2d 654, Syl. ¶ 7, 875 P.2d 289. The Court of Appeals rejected the inmates' contention that, because under the KSGA they would have completed their required term of imprisonment over a year ago, the inmates already effectively served the postrelease portion of their sentences as well. Since they still had time left to serve before their sentences were converted and because they only served prison time, the inmates remained liable to postrelease supervision upon their releases from incarceration. 19 Kan. App.2d at 663-64, 875 P.2d 289. Gaudina argues that Phillpot is distinguishable in that it dealt with the conversion of indeterminate prison sentences, not resentencing under the KSGA in light of Apprendi. But Phillpot is instructive because it emphasizes the legislature's intent that a defendant is to serve a bifurcated sentence  imprisonment followed by postrelease supervision  and that these two parts are effectively independent from each other. Similar to the situation in Phillpot, Gaudina's prison sentence under new law was decreased in length. Gaudina's sentence under the previous law had not been fully served, and he had only served time in prison. The Kansas Legislature mandates that inmates shall be released on postrelease supervision upon the termination of the prison portion of their sentence. Based on a reading of the statutes and Kansas appellate courts' previous interpretation of those statutes, we conclude that Gaudina is subject to postrelease supervision upon his release from incarceration. Furthermore, Gaudina is not entitled to a credit against his postrelease supervision period for the time he served on his original sentence that was in excess of the sentence imposed on remand. ISSUE 2: Did the district court's ruling violate the prohibition against double jeopardy? Next, Gaudina contends the district court's refusal to apply credit toward his postrelease supervision period violated his constitutional rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.