Simmons v. James
Citation | 467 F. Supp. 1068 |
Decision Date | 30 March 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 77-2162.,77-2162. |
Parties | Iley SIMMONS et al., Plaintiffs, v. James R. JAMES, Judicial Administrator and the State of Kansas, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Richard C. Wallace, Wyandotte County Legal Aid Society, Kansas City, Kan., for plaintiffs.
Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., by Janet Chubb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Topeka, Kan., for defendants.
This class action which challenges the validity of the Kansas "recoupment" statute, K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 22-4513, seeks declaratory injunctive and monetary relief. The action is brought under the federal civil rights statutes, and jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
By order of August 10, 1978, Judge O'Connor certified the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief for class action treatment. The claims for compensatory and punitive damages were severed, and proceed as an individual action. According to plaintiff's complaint, the class "consists of all persons who have received free legal counsel pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4610, 22-4510, 22-4513, and are now being billed by the State of Kansas for that free legal counsel."
The challenged statute, K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 22-4513, requires the defendant James, Kansas' Judicial Administrator, to demand repayment from an indigent defendant for whom an attorney was provided as soon as the service has been paid for by the state. If no payment is made, a judgment is summarily entered by the Clerk of the respective District Court as any other civil judgment. The statute reads as follows:
Another relevant statute is K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 21-4610(k) which authorizes a trial judge to impose recoupment as a condition of probation.
Plaintiffs' complaint challenges on multiple grounds the constitutionality of the recoupment statute under both the Kansas and United States Constitutions.
Plaintiffs' first cause of action alleges that the Kansas procedure for entering judgment under the recoupment statute violates due process under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the 18th Section in the Bill of Rights to the Kansas Constitution in that it provides inadequate notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is entered.
Plaintiffs' second cause of action alleges that the challenged statute, because it does not afford a hearing before rendition of judgment, denies plaintiffs a jury trial as guaranteed by the 5th and 7th Amendments to the United States Constitution and the 5th and 18th Sections of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution.
Plaintiffs' third cause of action alleges denial of equal protection in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the 1st Section of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution. The equal protection claim alleges that an indigent defendant who has a judgment entered against him pursuant to 22-4513 is not afforded the same protections as are afforded other individuals who have civil judgments rendered against them. Specifically, it is claimed that indigent criminal defendants are not afforded proper notice, hearing, jury trial rights, or rights of appeal which are accorded to civil defendants. Also, it is argued that K.S.A. 21-4610(k) provides that recoupment may be made a condition of probation, whereas a non-indigent defendant who has hired his own counsel and not paid him would never have payment of his counsel made a condition of probation. Finally, it is argued that the failure to determine who is financially capable of reimbursing the state and who is not is a denial of the right to equal protection.
Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action alleges a denial of the right to a jury trial, in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The theory of this argument is that an indigent defendant is deterred from exercising his right to a jury trial because that would increase the time his attorney would spend on the case and thus increase the amount which the indigent would ultimately have to reimburse the state. Thus, plaintiffs allege a "chilling" effect upon the right to a jury trial.
Plaintiffs' fifth cause of action alleges that the practical effect of 21-4610(k) allows imprisonment for failure to pay a debt in violation of the 16th Section of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution and the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs allege that continuing indigency could prevent a defendant from receiving probation conditioned upon reimbursement under subsection (k) of 21-4610.
Plaintiffs' sixth cause of action alleges that K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 21-4610(k) allows the State of Kansas to use conditions of probation as a "collection device" to force payment of a debt allegedly in violation of the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, which is guaranteed by the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the 9th Section of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution.
Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action argues that 22-4513 is unconstitutional because it places a needless burden upon the indigent defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel. Plaintiffs rely upon this Court's opinion in Strange v. James, 323 F.Supp. 1230 (1971), aff'd on other grounds, 407 U.S. 128, 92 S.Ct. 2027, 32 L.Ed.2d 600 (1972).
Plaintiffs' eighth cause of action attempts to state a basis for punitive damages in that it is alleged that defendants, by their acts...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Cook
...(1968), 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138; Commonwealth v. Opara (1976), 240 Pa.Super. 511, 362 A.2d 305; Simmons v. James (D.Kan.1979), 467 F.Supp. 1068, aff'd Olson v. James (10th Cir. 1979), 603 F.2d 150. See also Comment, Charging Costs of Prosecution to the Defendant, 59 Geo.......
-
Olson v. James, Nos. 78-1706
...States District Court for the District of Kansas found and determined that the Kansas statute was unconstitutional. Simmons v. James, 467 F.Supp. 1068 (D.Kan.1979). THE EMBATTLED The statute, Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-4513 (Supp.1978), provides for liability of a defendant in a criminal case for e......
- Hernandez v. Costa Armatori, SpA, 76 C 2300.
-
State v. Allen
...procedure. (L.1976, ch. 169, § 2, now 1979 Supp. 22-4513.) The recoupment statute was again held unconstitutional in Simmons v. James, 467 F.Supp. 1068 (D.Kan.1979), aff'd 603 F.2d 150 (10th Cir. 1979). The court held that as the statute now stands, it violates the right to counsel and the ......