Court Opinion

ID: 9363005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 16:05:41.624336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:27.664388
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                           No. 125,046

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                       STATE OF KANSAS,
                                           Appellee,

                                                 v.

                                 DAVID ANTHONY CALLAHAN,
                                         Appellant.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appeal from Leavenworth District Court; GERALD R. KUCKELMAN, judge. Opinion filed
December 23, 2022. Affirmed.

       Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6820(g) and
(h).

Before MALONE, P.J., HURST and COBLE, JJ.

       PER CURIAM: David Anthony Callahan appeals his jail sentence following his
convictions for interference with law enforcement and battery on a law enforcement
officer. Callahan argues that the district court abused its discretion in two ways: the
length of his concurrent sentences on these two offenses, and that the sentences are to run
consecutive to those in two prior cases. This court granted Callahan's motion for
summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.014A (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. at
48).

                                                 1
                       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       Callahan pled no contest to one count of interference with law enforcement and
one count battery on a law enforcement officer—both class A misdemeanors. See K.S.A.
2021 Supp. 21-5904(a)(3), (b)(5)(B); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5413(c)(1)(B), (g)(3)(A).
The district court imposed a 12-month sentence on each count and ordered them to run
concurrent with each other. The district court also ordered the sentence in this case to run
consecutive to Callahan's two prior cases.

       Callahan filed a timely notice of appeal.

Analysis

       Callahan first argues regarding the length of his sentence(s). He claims the district
court erred when it imposed a jail term of 12 months for the offense of interference with
law enforcement, a class A nonperson misdemeanor. Callahan also contends that the
district court erred when it imposed a jail term of 12 months for the offense of battery on
a law enforcement officer, a class A person misdemeanor. The potential term of
confinement for these class A misdemeanor offenses is outlined in K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-
6602(a)(1).

       Statutory interpretation presents a question of law over which appellate courts
have unlimited review. State v. Stoll, 312 Kan. 726, 736, 480 P.3d 158 (2021).

       Under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6602(a)(1), a district court is authorized to impose a
sentence of up to one year for a class A misdemeanor ("shall not exceed one year"). And
as Callahan acknowledges in his motion, a district court's sentence within statutory limits
will not be disturbed on appeal unless the appellant can show the district court abused its

                                             2
discretion. See State v. Moser, 299 Kan. 1, 3, 319 P.3d 1253 (2014) (applying an abuse of
discretion standard to review non-Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act sentences).

       A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, fanciful, or
unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error of fact. State
v. Levy, 313 Kan. 232, 237, 485 P.3d 605 (2021). The burden to show that the district
court abused its discretion rests on Callahan. See State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630, 635, 479
P.3d 167 (2021).

       Callahan fails to establish that the district court's decision to impose a 12-month
sentence for either of these class A misdemeanor offenses was arbitrary, fanciful, or
unreasonable or that it was based on an error of law or an error of fact. See Levy, 313
Kan. at 237.

       Second, Callahan argues that the district court erred when it ran his sentence
consecutive to two of his prior cases. Generally, whether a sentence should run
consecutive to or concurrent with another sentence is within the sound discretion of the
district court. State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 1126, 1138, 289 P.3d 76 (2012).

       Again, Callahan fails to establish that the district court's decision to run his
sentence consecutive to his prior cases was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. Nor does
Callahan establish that the district court's decision was based on an error of fact or an
error of law.

       Affirmed.

                                               3