State v. Alvarez
Decision Date | 18 January 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 115,993,115,993 |
Citation | 309 Kan. 203,432 P.3d 1015 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Ivan Huizar ALVAREZ, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Samuel D. Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Ellen H. Mitchell, county attorney, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, was with her on the brief for appellee.
Ivan Alvarez petitions for review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the district court's order taxing him for certain expenses as "court costs." We affirm the portion of the decision holding that the district court did not err in imposing these expenses as court costs, but we reverse the portion holding that the relevant statutes required that the district court impose these costs.
The State charged Alvarez with first-degree murder under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5402(a)(1). On January 22, 2016, three days before his trial was scheduled to begin, Alvarez pleaded no contest to one count of second-degree murder. Alvarez stated at the plea hearing that he had read the charge against him, which provided that the possible sentence ranged from 147 to 653 months' imprisonment.
In March 2016, the State requested the district court order Alvarez to reimburse the State for expenses related to witnesses and the development of photographs that it had intended to use as trial exhibits. Itemized receipts showed $451.19 in witness expenses and $421.88 for trial exhibits.
The district court held a sentencing hearing on April 8, 2016. The presentence investigation report determined that Alvarez' criminal history score was D. Alvarez did not object to this score. Both parties requested the standard-range sentence of 253 months' imprisonment, and the district court followed that recommendation. The district court then ordered Alvarez to pay all of the fees and expenses requested by the State. Alvarez did not object to paying the witness fees. But, with respect to the trial exhibit expenses, defense counsel stated the following:
The district court replied "[t]he Court finds that the statute provides that reimbursement for trial preparation fees such as those provided are appropriate and would find all those reasonable and properly documented and the $873.07 is allowed."
Alvarez appealed. He argued that the district court had no authority to tax him for the trial exhibit expenses. He also argued that the use of his criminal history score to enhance his sentence violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the court had authority to tax Alvarez for the trial exhibit expenses under K.S.A. 22-3801 and K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 28-172a. With regard to his constitutional argument, the panel concluded that Alvarez had not preserved the issue in the district court, had failed to explain why the Court of Appeals should consider it for the first time on appeal, and had waived the argument by improperly briefing it. The panel also noted that this court has already decided the issue adversely to Alvarez. State v. Alvarez , No. 115993, 2017 WL 1367057 (2017) (unpublished opinion).
Alvarez petitioned for this court's review. He argued that the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that the district court had the authority to tax him for trial preparation expenses and when it declined to consider his constitutional claim. We granted review of both issues.
Alvarez argues that the district court lacked any authority to tax him for expenses related to the prosecution's production of trial exhibits.
This issue requires the interpretation of statutes. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Brosseit , 308 Kan. 743, 748, 423 P.3d 1036 (2018).
Under K.S.A. 22-3801(a), "[i]f the defendant in a criminal case is convicted, the court costs shall be taxed against the defendant and shall be a judgment against the defendant which may be enforced as judgments for payment of money in civil cases."
The Court of Appeals panel concluded that "[t]he expenses for photographic trial exhibits reasonably fit within the ‘[a]ll other ... expenses ... shall be approved’ parameters of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 28-172a(d) and can be classified as court costs for the purpose of ‘taxing’ them to a convicted defendant." 2017 WL 1367057, at *2. Furthermore, the panel held, "[u]nder these statutes, not only did the district court have the authority to assess the photographs as court costs to be reimbursed to the prosecution, it was mandated that it do so." 2017 WL 1367057, at *3. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's decision taxing Alvarez for the exhibit expenses. 2017 WL 1367057, at *3.
We agree that the district court did not err when it found that the expenses the State incurred in preparing these exhibits were properly taxable as court costs under K.S.A. 22-3801.
The State asserts that "court costs" include any expenses related to the prosecution of the defendant. The State's position is in line with Kansas caselaw dating back to 1868.
In Co. Com'rs v. Whiting , 4 Kan. 273, 275 (1868), this court considered sections 311 and 318 of the code of criminal procedure. Those provisions provided that " ‘[t]he costs shall be paid by the county in which the offense is committed, [in cases] in which the defendant shall be convicted, and shall be unable to pay them’ " and that "[w]henever any person shall be convicted of any crime or misdemeanor, no costs incurred on his part, except fees for board, shall be paid by the territory or county." 4 Kan. at 274. This court interpreted those provisions to mean that " ‘when any person has been convicted of a crime against the laws, such person is liable for all the costs which are properly chargeable under the law; that is to say, he is liable for all costs made by the prosecution, and for all costs made in his own behalf.’ " 4 Kan. at 280.
In 1965, this court affirmed the language in Whiting , holding that "[i]t is well settled in this state that upon conviction in a criminal action the defendant is liable for the costs made in both the prosecution and defense of the case." State v. Shannon , 194 Kan. 258, 263, 398 P.2d 344, cert. denied 382 U.S. 881, 86 S.Ct. 172, 15 L.Ed.2d 122 (1965). Kansas district courts and the Court of Appeals regularly rely on this well-settled understanding of the law. See, e.g., State v. Lopez , 36 Kan. App. 2d 723, 728, 143 P.3d 695 (2006) ( ); State v. Rother , 23 Kan. App. 2d 443, 443, 931 P.2d 1268, rev. denied 261 Kan. 1088 (1997) ( ).
We do not depart from this caselaw today. We do, however, note that the expenses must bear a reasonable relation to the prosecution to be taxable as court costs. The State conceded this point at oral argument, and we agree, as have other courts that have addressed this issue. See People v. Wallace , 245 Mich. 310, 314, 222 N.W. 698 (1929) ( ); see also Leyritz v. State , 93 So.3d 1156, 1157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) ( ); People v. Davis , 247 Mich. 672, 673, 226 N.W. 671 (1929) ( ); State v. Moon , 124 Wash. App. 190, 195, 100 P.3d 357 (2004) ( ).
Here, the State incurred expenses in generating photographs it would use at trial. At oral argument, the State indicated that it used these photographs at Alvarez' preliminary hearing. Because of that, these expenses were reasonably related to the prosecution of Alvarez and are therefore an appropriate tax against him under K.S.A. 22-3801.
Although we agree with the Court of Appeals panel's conclusion that these expenses were properly taxable as court costs, we make one clarification to its expression of the law. The panel...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Genson, No. 121,014
...Resolution of this issue requires statutory interpretation over which appellate courts have unlimited review. State v. Alvarez , 309 Kan. 203, 205, 432 P.3d 1015 (2019). The most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the Legislature governs if that intent can be d......
-
State v. Gentry
...for transcripts and depositions, costs from other courts, doctors' fees and examination and evaluation fees."In State v. Alvarez , 309 Kan. 203, 205-07, 432 P.3d 1015 (2019), we affirmed the Court of Appeals conclusion that expenses for photographic trial exhibits can be classified as court......
-
State v. Hillard
...ends of justice or prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or the district court is right for the wrong reason." State v. Alvarez , 309 Kan. 203, 209, 432 P.3d 1015 (2019).Hillard claims we should reach this constitutional issue because it meets two of the recognized exceptions: (1) it in......
-
State v. Keys
...statutory interpretation, both of which are subject to unlimited review. Dunn , 304 Kan. at 819, 375 P.3d 332 ; see State v. Alvarez , 309 Kan. 203, 205, 432 P.3d 1015 (2019) (interpretation of statute presents question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review); Born v. Born......