Court Opinion

ID: 9929395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 16:07:40.692251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:06.838444
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                              No. 125,957

               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                          DAVID D. WASYLK,
                                             Appellant,

                                                       v.

                                          STATE OF KANSAS,
                                              Appellee.

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Appeal from Lyon District Court; MERLIN G. WHEELER, judge. Submitted without oral argument.
Opinion filed February 2, 2024. Affirmed.

        Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, for appellant.

        Amy L. Aranda, first assistant county attorney, Marc Goodman, county attorney, and Kris W.
Kobach, attorney general, for appellee.

Before BRUNS, P.J., COBLE and PICKERING, JJ.

        PER CURIAM: David D. Wasylk appeals from the district court's summary
dismissal of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. His motion was premised on the contention that
his trial counsel should have called additional witnesses at his sentencing hearing in
support of his motion for a departure sentence. However, the content of the witnesses'
testimony was already contained within a written motion. Moreover, a review of the
record reveals that additional testimony would not have served any beneficial purpose.
For these reasons, we find that Wasylk has failed to show that his trial counsel was
ineffective. Thus, we affirm the summary dismissal of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

                                                       1
                                           FACTS

       In 2014, a jury found Wasylk guilty of four counts of manufacturing
methamphetamine. In addition, the jury found him to be guilty of one count each of
possession of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, lithium metal, or anhydrous ammonia with
intent to manufacture a controlled substance; possession of drug paraphernalia with the
intent to manufacture a controlled substance; and possession of anhydrous ammonia in an
unapproved container. The underlying facts of the case are set forth in the opinion
affirming his convictions on direct appeal and will not be repeated in this opinion. State
v. Wasylk, No. 112,128, 2015 WL 6833835, at *1-4 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished
opinion), rev. denied 305 Kan. 1257 (2016).

       Before sentencing, Wasylk moved for downward durational departure. In support
of his motion, he argued—among other things—that he was not the principal actor, that
he had a supportive family, and that he had a solid employment history. At his
sentencing hearing, Wasylk reiterated his arguments and presented testimony from his
mother. She described her son to be a hard worker and a loving father to his children.
After considering the arguments and testimony presented by Wasylk, the district court
denied Wasylk’s departure motion.

       In reaching its decision to deny the departure motion, the district court decided
that the reasons given by Wasylk were not substantial and compelling in light of the
seriousness of the crimes of convictions. In particular, the district court explained that
methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution posed a significant danger to the safety
of the community. The district court also considered the fact that Wasylk committed his
crimes while under the supervision of Lyon County in another criminal case in which he
was convicted of cultivating, distributing, or possessing with the intent to distribute
opiates, opium, narcotic drugs, or designated stimulants.

                                              2
       Consequently, the district court sentenced him to a guidelines sentence for a total
of 308 months' imprisonment with 36 months of postrelease supervision. On direct
appeal, Wasylk's convictions were affirmed, and as noted above, the Kansas Supreme
Court later denied Wasylk's petition for review. State v. Wasylk, 2015 WL 6833835, at
*16. Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court also denied Wasylk's petition for writ
of certiorari. Wasylk v. Kansas, 581 U.S. 997, 137 S. Ct. 2169, 198 L. Ed. 2d 240 (2017).

       Within one year following the United States Supreme Court's denial of his
certiorari petition, Wasylk filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance
of both trial and appellate counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court
denied Wasylk's motion. On appeal, a panel of this court affirmed the district court's
decision. Wasylk v. Kansas, No. 122,214, 2020 WL 6685312, at *5 (Kan. App. 2020)
(unpublished opinion), rev. denied 313 Kan. 1046 (2021).

       On June 30, 2022, Wasylk filed a second K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, which is the
subject of this appeal. In this motion, he again argued that trial counsel was ineffective.
This time he claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call additional
witnesses at the sentencing hearing to testify in support of his departure motion. As to the
timing of the motion, Wasylk asserted that the motion should be considered to be timely
because it was filed within one year of the mandate being issued in the appeal from the
denial of his prior K.S.A. 60-1507 case. He also claimed that manifest injustice justified
his otherwise untimely filing because of the length of his sentence as compared with two
others involved in the methamphetamine operation.

       The district court summarily dismissed Wasylk's second K.S.A. 60-1507 motion
without a hearing. Notably, the judge who dismissed Wasylk's motion was the same
judge who presided over Wasylk's 2014 sentencing. In dismissing the motion, the district
court found that it was not timely filed. However, the court also went on to address the
claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel raised by Wasylk in his motion.

                                              3
       Regarding Wasylk's claim that his trial counsel should have called additional
character witnesses at the sentencing hearing, the district court noted that evidence of
Wasylk's good character, employment history, and background were discussed in the
departure motion. Moreover, it found that presenting additional evidence on the subject
would not have changed the sentencing decision. Similarly, the district court found that
trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call the person who completed Wasylk's
drug evaluation because the findings were contained in the report presented to support the
departure motion.

       Thereafter, Wasylk filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                          ANALYSIS

       On appeal, the sole issue presented is whether the district court erred in summarily
dismissing Wasylk’s second K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. When a district court summarily
dismisses a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, we conduct a de novo review to determine whether
the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish that the movant is not
entitled to relief. Beauclair v. State, 308 Kan. 284, 293, 419 P.3d 1180 (2018). We pause
to note that the State concedes that Wasylk’s second K.S.A. 60-1507 motion was timely
filed, so it is not necessary for us to address the issue of timeliness.

       The question we must answer is whether Wasylk asserted sufficient facts in his
K.S.A. 60-1507 motion "which do not appear in the original record but which, if true,
would entitle [him] to relief, and the motion identifies readily available witnesses whose
testimony would support such facts or other sources of evidence." Swenson v. State, 284
Kan. 931, 939, 169 P.3d 298 (2007). Wasylk claims his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to call additional witnesses at his sentencing hearing to support his motion for a
downward durational departure. Although he suggests that these witnesses could have
testified as to his good character and drug problems, there is no indication that these

                                               4
witnesses would have provided evidence beyond what was stated in his motion for
departure or at the sentencing hearing. As the district court noted, Wasylk’s departure
motion detailed his work history, his dedication to his community, and his strong ties to
his family. The motion also detailed his history of drug dependency.

       At the sentencing hearing, the district court did not question the veracity of
Wasylk’s claims regarding his history, nor did it question the accuracy of the reasons he
gave in requesting that he receive a reduced sentence. Instead, the district court found that
the reasons he gave were not sufficient to justify a departure sentence. Under these
circumstances, we agree with the district court that the testimony of additional witnesses
at the sentencing hearing would not have changed its decision to impose a sentence
consistent with the guidelines.

       While we recognize that "good character, family, and community support
ordinarily carry some weight as mitigating factors"—and that these things may support a
departure sentence for less serious crimes—they carry less significance when a person
commits serious crimes. State v. Theurer, 50 Kan. App. 2d 1203, 1242, 337 P.3d 725
(2014). This is because the Revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, K.S.A. 2022
Supp. 21-6801 et seq., reflects the intent of the Kansas Legislative for sentencing courts
to "'address circumstances, behaviors, and facts within the case' rather than 'a Defendant's
individual characteristics outside . . . the case' itself." 50 Kan. App. 2d at 1221. Here, we
find it to be significant that Wasylk was convicted of several severity level 1 crimes—the
crimes the Legislature has deemed most serious—and his convictions were upheld on
direct appeal.

                                              5
       Under these circumstances, we agree with the district court that the motion, files,
and records of the case conclusively establish that Wasylk is not entitled to relief. For this
reason, we conclude that the district court did not err in summarily dismissing his second
K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s decision.

       Affirmed.

                                              6