Court Opinion

ID: 9363000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 16:05:37.266913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:27.597937
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                             No. 124,645

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

                                         STATE OF KANSAS,
                                             Appellee,

                                                   v.

                                 KARIE LANE MARTIN MCBRIDE,
                                          Appellant.

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appeal from Barton District Court; CAREY L. HIPP, judge. Opinion filed December 30, 2022.
Affirmed.

       Emily Brandt and Bryan Cox, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

       Natalie Chalmers, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., GARDNER and CLINE, JJ.

       PER CURIAM: Karie Lane Martin McBride violated his probation by failing to pay
restitution as ordered by the district court. He now appeals, arguing the restitution portion
of his sentence should be vacated because the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose
restitution at a separate hearing. Because we find that the district court properly continued
sentencing to determine the amount of restitution, it retained jurisdiction to do so. As a
result, we affirm.

                                                   1
                           FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       After being arrested and charged with fleeing from police in a vehicle he did not
own, McBride ultimately pled no contest to two counts of fleeing and eluding law
enforcement. Under the plea agreement, McBride acknowledged he would "pay
restitution if requested [by the State] . . . and that the sentencing for this case will not be
considered as complete until such time as restitution is assessed by the Court or agreed
upon by the parties."

       At sentencing the parties asked the district court to follow the plea agreement as to
the length of sentence by imposing consecutive sentences of 15 and 7 months—for a total
controlling sentence of 22 months—and McBride argued for a dispositional departure.
The State also asked the court to impose "standard costs," and for the court to impose
total restitution of $12,585.03 for damage to the vehicle McBride used to commit his
crimes, but noted "[m]aybe it wasn't agreed upon, but it was indicated that the State will
request it."

       McBride's counsel opposed the amount of restitution, noting that the plea
agreement left restitution up to the agreement of parties or as assessed by the court.
Defense counsel explained that McBride would agree to $2,845.08 in restitution because
he believed that to be the amount of damage caused by his offenses. Defense counsel
asked the court to consider holding a separate evidentiary hearing to determine the
amount of restitution and "reserve jurisdiction for that purpose and pronounce sentence
today." The State responded, "I think that the court can keep restitution open as long as
it's clear for today's journal entry that sentencing is not complete," and that since the
parties disagreed on the amount, holding a separate hearing for restitution was "the best
thing to do."

                                               2
       After the district court asked for clarification of part of the State's restitution
request, defense counsel offered to provide a copy of a letter he had sent to the State
detailing the agreed-upon amounts. The court said, "That's okay. If we're going to have a
separate hearing, then we'll reserve all that for a different time. I just wanted to help put
the State on notice to what the issues are, and you're telling me you have already done
that." The court then allowed McBride to make an allocution before imposing sentence.

       Although the district court followed the plea agreement as to the individual prison
terms, the court decided to order the sentences to run concurrent for a total controlling
prison sentence of 15 months. The court also agreed to grant McBride's request for a
dispositional departure and ordered him to serve a 12-month probation term. The court
ordered McBride to pay court fees and costs, including the full amount of Board of
Indigents' Defense Services attorney fees, but stated:

       "[J]ust to be clear on the issue of restitution, the court is going to hold off on that and we
       need to schedule a restitution hearing is what it sounds like. So I will leave the sentencing
       open knowing that the restitution is going to be determined by the court at a future date."

       After advising McBride of his right to appeal, the district court then discussed
scheduling an evidentiary hearing for restitution. After inquiring how much time the State
would need, the court said, "Okay. We'll get something scheduled and be in touch[,]" and
closed the hearing. Immediately following the hearing, the court entered a minute sheet
order reciting only the length of McBride's sentence.

       McBride began serving his probation term the day of sentencing. He signed an
order of intensive supervision probation, which included monthly payment of costs
"assessed by the Court" as a probation condition, listing the fees in the amounts imposed
at the hearing but listing restitution as "$TBD."

                                                     3
       As promised, the district court scheduled a restitution hearing for about a month
later. The day before that hearing, the State requested a continuance so that the parties
could "attempt[] to resolve the issue of restitution without the need for a hearing." The
court granted the continuance and entered an order—which was approved by McBride's
counsel—specifying the "matter will be reset, if necessary, to a date and time agreed to
by the Court and the parties."

       The district court held the restitution hearing approximately three months after the
first sentencing hearing. McBride waived his right to be personally present and appeared
by Zoom, while the attorneys were present in the courtroom. The court began by
confirming with counsel "that we have previously done the sentencing . . . [a]nd at this
time we continued it for the issue of restitution." The court also noted that it had imposed
court costs and fees "when we completed the sentencing."

       The parties presented evidence and called witnesses. In short, the State's witnesses
testified that the vehicle McBride used to flee from the officers suffered both cosmetic
and mechanical damage resulting in a total insurance claim of $12,585.03, with the
vehicle's owner having paid a $500 deductible. McBride agreed that the vehicle suffered
cosmetic damages of $2,845.08 but disputed whether he caused the mechanical damage
to the vehicle.

       After considering the parties' arguments, the district court found there was
substantial and competent evidence to support ordering the full amount of restitution
requested by the State. After noting that McBride had about eight months left on his
probation term, the court said that requiring McBride to pay $1,500 a month "is not going
to be workable." After consulting the parties, the court decided to order McBride to pay
restitution "in full prior to the termination of probation." The court again advised
McBride of his right to appeal the sentence, noting "that's going to be from today, right,
since we're talking about the restitution issue?" Following the hearing, the court filed the

                                              4
journal entry of sentencing, which showed two dates under sentencing: "10/9/2020" and
"02/01/2021 (Restitution Hearing)."

       Eight months later, as McBride's probation was ending, his probation officer filed
a violation report and affidavit, listing McBride's failure to make monthly payments as
the only alleged violation, noting that he still owed the full amount of restitution imposed.
McBride admitted he had made no restitution payments during his probation term. The
State recommended the court reinstate and extend probation for another 12 months, while
McBride asked the court to consider sending the unpaid amount of restitution to
collections and allow his probation to terminate. The court decided to extend McBride's
probation for 12 months.

       McBride timely appealed.

                                         ANALYSIS

       McBride argues that the district court imposed an illegal sentence when it ordered
him to pay restitution at a separate hearing without explicitly bifurcating or continuing
sentencing to retain jurisdiction. Although he is appealing from the order extending his
probation, he is challenging the legality of his sentence for the first time on appeal.

       While typically appellants cannot raise new issues on appeal, "certain issues, such
as subject matter jurisdiction or an illegal sentence, can be raised at any time regardless
of whether the issue was presented to the district court." State v. Johnson, 309 Kan. 992,
995, 441 P.3d 1036 (2019); see K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(a) ("The court may correct
an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence."). Restitution
is part of a defendant's sentence. State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978, 983, 319 P.3d 506 (2014);
see also State v. Eubanks, 316 Kan. 355, 360, 516 P.3d 116 (2022) (considering illegal

                                              5
sentence challenge based on restitution order for first time on appeal). As a result,
McBride can challenge the legality of his restitution order on appeal for the first time.

       Whether a sentence is illegal as defined by K.S.A. 22-3504 presents a question of
law over which we exercise unlimited review. State v. Sartin, 310 Kan. 367, 369, 446
P.3d 1068 (2019). Relevant to this appeal, Kansas law defines an illegal sentence in part
as one "[i]mposed by a court without jurisdiction." K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1).
Since McBride's argument relates to jurisdiction, that determination also presents a
question of law subject to unlimited review. State v. Lundberg, 310 Kan. 165, 170, 445
P.3d 1113 (2019).

       McBride claims his sentence is illegal because the district court lacked jurisdiction
to impose restitution after the first hearing. As support, he relies on a trio of cases issued
by the Kansas Supreme Court in 2014: Hall, 298 Kan. 978; State v. Frierson, 298 Kan.
1005, 319 P.3d 515 (2014); and State v. Charles, 298 Kan. 993, 318 P.3d 997 (2014).

       In Hall and Frierson our Supreme Court held that "[b]ecause restitution
constitutes a part of a defendant's sentence, . . . [u]ntil any applicable restitution amount
is decided, a criminal defendant's sentencing is not complete." Hall, 298 Kan. 978, Syl.
¶ 1; Frierson, 298 Kan. 1005, Syl. ¶ 7. Yet in reaching that holding, the court recognized
it was still possible for the sentencing court to hold a separate hearing to establish
restitution and retain subject-matter jurisdiction over sentencing, explaining that courts
must "specifically order the continuance or bifurcation" so that it may decide restitution
at a later hearing. Hall, 298 Kan. 978, Syl. ¶ 2; Frierson, 298 Kan. 1005, Syl. ¶ 8.

       In both cases, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the restitution orders for similar
reasons. At the sentencing hearing in Hall, the district court ordered restitution to remain
open for 30 days at the State's request but did not hold a restitution hearing until 81 days
later. At that hearing, Hall and his counsel were both present. Although the Kansas

                                               6
Supreme Court disfavored allowing a "functional continuance" in this way, the court
nonetheless upheld the restitution order imposed at the second hearing. Hall, 298 Kan. at
987.

       Similarly, in Frierson, the district court imposed an initial amount of restitution
based on a theft but held restitution open for 30 days with the agreement of the parties so
they could settle on the correct amount for injuries sustained by the victim. Within that
time but without holding a hearing, the court entered a restitution order which defense
counsel signed. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the restitution order,
explaining that "we are satisfied that the spirit, if not the letter, of the procedure we set
out for future cases in Hall was satisfied." Frierson, 298 Kan. at 1021.

       Unlike these decisions, the Kansas Supreme Court vacated the restitution order in
Charles. In that case, the district court announced at sentencing that restitution "'as
contained within the presentence report will be ordered,'" without realizing that the PSI
report detailed specific restitution amounts for some victims but listing the amount for
one victim as "'to be determined.'" Charles, 298 Kan. at 995. The defendant promptly
appealed and nearly a month later the court entered a restitution order requiring the
defendant to pay the specific amounts listed in the PSI but also setting an amount for the
restitution owed to the remaining victim. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court found
that the Hall and Frierson decisions compelled it to vacate the restitution ordered for the
remaining victim because the district court did "nothing" to preserve jurisdiction or hold
sentencing open. 298 Kan. at 1002 (noting there are no "'magic words'" needed to
continue sentencing but doing "more than nothing has nevertheless been the rule"); see
also State v. Davis, 50 Kan. App. 2d 725, 727-28, 333 P.3d 190 (2014) (upholding
restitution order where court stated restitution was "'to be determined'" at a later hearing
on initial journal entry).

                                               7
       McBride's argument hinges on his belief that the district court did not do enough at
the October 2020 hearing to preserve jurisdiction over restitution, by using imprecise
language and not explicitly ordering a continuance or bifurcating the sentencing as
anticipated in Hall and Frierson. The State responds that the record shows the parties and
court agreed that restitution would be addressed by the court at a later hearing, and that
the court stating there would be a "'separate hearing'" on restitution is the "functional
equivalent of bifurcating the sentencing hearing."

       Put simply, the procedures taken by the district court here more closely align with
the facts of Hall and Frierson than Charles and show the court did enough to preserve
jurisdiction. Although the court closed the first hearing without stating a specific timeline
for addressing restitution—like the 30-day extensions in Hall and Frierson—the record
shows that everyone knew McBride's sentencing would not be complete until restitution
was resolved. At the request of both parties, the court explicitly stated it would "leave the
sentencing open knowing that the restitution is going to be determined by the court at a
future date." Likewise, McBride agreed to pay restitution in the plea agreement and his
signed probation order reflected that the amount of restitution was "$TBD." Moreover,
McBride never objected to any perceived delays in scheduling the restitution hearing and
fully participated in the restitution hearing as if he understood his sentence was not yet
complete. In sum, the district court here did "more than nothing" to preserve jurisdiction
over restitution. See Charles, 298 Kan. at 1002.

       As a final note, McBride also mentions that the district court advised him of his
right to appeal the sentence after the first hearing and suggests that this fact demonstrates
his sentence became a final and effective judgment at that time. The Kansas Supreme
Court directly addressed this argument in Hall by holding that "a premature notice of
appeal that seeks review of a conviction and sentencing yet to be completed lies dormant
until final judgment including the entire sentence is pronounced from the bench." Hall,
298 Kan. at 988. Thus, even if McBride had filed a notice of appeal right after the first

                                              8
hearing—which he did not do—the district court's erroneous recitation of the notice of
appeal deadline would not have changed the outcome here.

       For these reasons, we conclude that the district court had the subject-matter
jurisdiction to enter its restitution order at a second hearing. Thus, we affirm McBride's
sentence.

       Affirmed.

                                             9