Court Opinion

ID: 9548923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:10:45.403331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:37.834728
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge
(specially concurring).
With considerable reluctance I concur in this decision; but while doing so I emphasize to defense counsel the provisions of 22 O.S.1971, § 994, pertaining to suspended sentences after appeal. After considering State v. Haremza, 213 Kan. 201, 515 P.2d 1217 (1973), I am convinced that the prima facie presumption is a proper rule of evidence. In the instant case had the defendant approached the various merchants with some good faith offer to make the checks good, after she learned that the bank account was insufficient, the prima facie presumption would no doubt have been overcome. But in the instant case the defendant, through ignorance or misunderstanding or wilfullness, failed to make any effort to contact the merchants until after she was arrested. I am inclined to believe it was through ignorance or misunderstanding, but the jury must have concluded her *344lack of an offer to make the checks good was wilful. Under the facts contained in the record before this Court, I believe the trial court should resolve any such doubt in favor of the defendant and grant a suspended sentence. Likewise, because the defendant did obtain two separate jobs and has two small children to support, I believe the proper administration of justice warrants the granting of a suspended sentence.