State v. Carleton, 121,085

• Decision Date: 04 September 2020
• Docket Number: 121,085,121,086
• Citation: 469 P.3d 1290 (Table)
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. David Dean CARLETON, Appellant.

469 P.3d 1290 (Table)

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.David Dean CARLETON, Appellant.

121,085

121,086

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Opinion filed September 4, 2020.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Per Curiam:

David Dean Carleton appeals from his sentences for driving under the influence and aggravated domestic battery, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed consecutive sentences. Carleton moved for summary disposition in lieu of briefs under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). We granted Carleton's motion for summary disposition. The State responded and asked that we affirm the trial court's judgment. Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this matter, we affirm.

Did the Trial Court Abuse Its Discretion by Imposing Consecutive Sentences?

Under a plea agreement, Carleton pleaded no contest to felony driving under the influence (DUI)—fourth or later offense in No. 17CR1125. Carleton also pleaded no contest to aggravated domestic battery in No. 18CR829. The trial court sentenced Carleton for both cases in a single hearing. The trial court imposed a sentence of 29 months' imprisonment with 12 months' postrelease supervision for Carleton's aggravated domestic battery conviction. The trial court also imposed a six-month jail sentence for Carleton's felony DUI conviction, to be served consecutive to his sentence for aggravated domestic battery. Carleton timely appeals.

" ‘Generally, it is within the trial court's sound discretion to determine whether a sentence should run concurrent with or consecutive to another sentence.’ " State v. Ross , 295 Kan. 1126, 1138, 289 P.3d 76 (2012) (quoting State v. Jamison , 269 Kan. 564, 576, 7 P.3d 1204 [2000] ). A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion (1) if it is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) if it is based on an error of law; or (3) if it is based on an error of fact. State v. Ingham , 308 Kan. 1466, 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018).

Carleton acknowledges that the trial court has discretion to impose consecutive sentences. He does not allege that the trial court's decision was based on an error of fact or law. Rather, Carleton essentially argues that the trial court's decision was unreasonable, asserting he "had a severe alcohol problem that led to both incidents and prison would worsen, rather than help that addiction." The record reflects that the trial court was aware of Carleton's issues with alcohol addiction based on the arguments of Carleton's attorney when requesting a dispositional departure at...