Cooper v. Werholtz
| Decision Date | 30 January 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 90,558,90,558 |
| Citation | 277 Kan. 250,83 P.3d 1212 |
| Parties | MANFORD COOPER, Appellee, v. ROGER WERHOLTZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Kenneth R. Smith, special assistant attorney general, was on the brief for appellant.
Charles J. Cavenee, of Legal Services for Prisoners, Inc., was on the brief for appellee.
The opinion was delivered by
In 1988, Manford Cooper was convicted of a single class A felony and received a life sentence, which was tripled pursuant to the Habitual Criminal Act, K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4504. The Department of Corrections (DOC) informed Cooper, an inmate at the Lansing Correctional Facility, that he would be eligible for parole in October 2002, at which time he would have served 15 years of imprisonment. Later, DOC advised Cooper his parole eligibility was changed from 15 to 45 years. Cooper filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-1501 after exhausting his administrative remedies.
The district court initially denied Cooper's request for relief, but upon reconsideration, granted the petition. The Secretary of Corrections appeals. The case was transferred to this court on the court's own motion pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3018(c).
The overarching issue for our determination is whether Cooper, whose life sentence was tripled under the Habitual Criminal Act, K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4504, is eligible for parole under K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 22-3717 after serving 15 years, or whether by operation of K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4504 he must serve three consecutive 15-year periods before becoming parole eligible.
Before reaching this issue, however, we must consider the Secretary's argument that the district court erroneously applied the current version of the statute which specifies the time frame for parole eligibility, K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-3717, and retroactively applied the 1993 amendments to 22-3717(b)(3).
The Secretary is correct that the outcome of this case is governed by the statutes in effect at the time the crime of conviction was committed. See State v. Martin, 270 Kan. 603, 605, 17 P.3d 344 (2001) () However, the district court did not disregard this rule, but stated that the current statute was essentially the same as previous versions of the statute. In this case, the crime of conviction was committed in January 1987, and the parole eligibility statute in effect at that time, K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 22-3717, provided:
The current version, K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-3717, which the district court quoted, states:
Comparison of the two versions of the statute reveals the accuracy of the trial court's conclusion that the current statute is "essentially the same language" as that found in the 1986 version of the statute. Thus, although the statute which controls is that which was in effect at the time Cooper committed the crime of conviction, we are not faced with an issue of whether subsequent amendments affected the time of Cooper's parole eligibility. Consequently, we need not consider an issue regarding retroactivity.
Rather, we must determine whether the district court's interpretation of the language of the statute was erroneous. In doing so, our standard of review is unlimited. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which appellate courts exercise unlimited review. State v. Maass, 275 Kan. 328, 330, 64 P.3d 382 (2003). Additionally, in cases involving habeas corpus relief pursuant to K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-1501, an appellate court's review of the district court's conclusions of law is unlimited. Darnell v. Simmons, 30 Kan. App. 2d 778, 780, 48 P.3d 1278 (2002).
This court and the district court's interpretation of the statute must occur within the parameters of well-established rules.
State ex rel. Stovall v. Meneley, 271 Kan. 355, 378, 22 P.3d 124 (2001) (citing In re Marriage of Killman, 264 Kan. 33, 42-43, 955 P.2d 1228 [1998]).
We agree with Cooper's argument and the district court's conclusion that the language of K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 22-3717(b) is plain and unambiguous. The statute provides in relevant part: "An inmate sentenced for a class A felony . . . shall be eligible for parole after serving 15 years of confinement . . . ." K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 22-3717(b). Aggregation of sentences occurs only "if an inmate is sentenced to imprisonment for more than one crime." (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 22-3717(c). An additional 15 years is imposed "for each crime which is a class A felony." (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 22-3717(c)(2). Cooper committed one crime and is eligible for parole after serving 15 years. Additional periods are not imposed because Cooper did not commit more than one crime.
The Secretary also argues that K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 22-3717 and K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4504 operated in pari materia and that Cooper's suggested interpretation of 22-3717 would implicitly repeal 21-4504. K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4504(b) provided:
In essence, the Secretary seeks to treat the parole eligibility period as if it had been announced as a minimum sentence under subsection (1). However, as we have explained in the past: State v. Van Winkle, 256 Kan. 890, 899, 889 P.2d 749 (1995). Hence, the tripling of a life sentence does not fall squarely within the terms of the statute. Despite this, we have recognized that K.S.A. 21-4504 () gives the sentencing court the authority to double or triple the life sentence of a habitual violator. See State v. Sanders, 263 Kan. 317, 328, 949 P.2d 1084 (1997); State v. Patterson, 257 Kan. 824, 896 P.2d 1056 (1995); State v. Baker, 237 Kan. 54, 56-57, 697 P.2d 1267 (1985); State v. Beasley, 205 Kan. 253, 469 P.2d 453 (1970),cert. denied 401 U.S. 919 (1971).
The Secretary relies upon Sanders, arguing that in that decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, No. 94,033.
...subject to unlimited review. See, e.g., Johnson v. Brooks Plumbing, 281 Kan. 1212, 1213-14, 135 P.3d 1203 (2006); Cooper v. Werholtz, 277 Kan. 250, 252, 83 P.3d 1212 (2004). When we are called upon to interpret a statute, we first attempt to give effect to the intent of the legislature as e......
-
Dodge City Implement v. Board of Com'Rs
...Interpretation or construction of a statute raises a question of law reviewable on appeal under a de novo standard. Cooper v. Werholtz, 277 Kan. 250, 252, 83 P.3d 1212 (2004). Likewise, this court exercises unlimited review over the construction of a written instrument and the determination......
-
Williams v. Lawton
...position. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review. Cooper v. Werholtz, 277 Kan. 250, 252, 83 P.3d 1212 (2004). K.S.A. 60-3412 "In any medical malpractice liability action, as defined in K.S.A. 60-3401 and amendments thereto, in......
-
Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc.
...cap of K.S.A. 60-3702(e). Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and the court's review is unlimited. Cooper v. Werholtz, 277 Kan. 250, 252, 83 P.3d 1212 (2004). K.S.A. 60-3702(a) "In any civil action in which exemplary or punitive damages are recoverable, the trier of fact shall......