State v. Arnett, No. 99,508.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtDavis
Citation223 P.3d 780
Decision Date22 January 2010
Docket NumberNo. 99,508.
PartiesSTATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Mary ARNETT, Appellee.
223 P.3d 780
STATE of Kansas, Appellant,
v.
Mary ARNETT, Appellee.
No. 99,508.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
January 22, 2010.

[223 P.3d 781]

Amanda D. Voth, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Thomas R. Stanton, deputy district attorney, Keith E. Schroeder, district attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, were on the brief for appellant.

Janine Cox, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by DAVIS, C.J.:


Mary Arnett was convicted of three counts for forgery in case No. 07 CR 404 on August 7, 2007. Earlier that same day, Arnett was convicted of three other forgery counts in a different case, case No. 07 CR 319. The instant case is Arnett's appeal from her sentence in case No. 07 CR 404. Relying on two of the three prior forgery convictions in case No. 07 CR 319, the district court sentenced her for a third forgery conviction under the progressive sentencing scheme set forth in

223 P.3d 782

K.S.A. 21-3710(b)(4), which requires 45 days' imprisonment as a condition of probation and a fine that is the lesser of the amount of the forged instrument or $2,500. The defendant successfully objected to a criminal history being category E (three or more nonperson felonies). The court modified her criminal history to category F (two nonperson felonies) based upon the provisions of K.S.A. 21-4710(d)(11), stating that "[p]rior convictions of any crime shall not be counted . . . if they enhance the . . . applicable penalties." The Court of Appeals vacated her sentence and remanded the case for imposition of sentence with a criminal history of E. We granted defendant's petition for review, reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment of the district court.

FACTS

Upon complaint filed in Reno County in case No. 07 CR 404, Arnett was charged with three counts of forgery under the provisions of K.S.A. 21-3710(a)(1). Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant entered a plea of no contest to Counts 1, 2, and 3. There is no mention in the charging document of K.S.A. 21-3710(b), which sets forth the progressive sentencing scheme for a first forgery conviction, a second forgery conviction, and a third or subsequent forgery conviction. The record establishes that defendant did not object to the charges in the complaint. Nor has the defendant raised any concern with the charging document, and we therefore do not address any issue dealing with the complaint filed.

It is apparent from the record that the State, the defendant, and the district court treated each of the three counts in the complaint as a third forgery conviction, requiring the defendant "to serve at least 45 days' imprisonment as a condition of probation, and fined the lesser of the amount of the forged instrument or $2,500." K.S.A. 21-3710(b)(4). The presentence investigation report reflects this fact, as does the journal entry of sentence for the three counts of forgery. In addition, the transcript of the sentencing hearing specifically shows that each count was considered a third forgery conviction. The sentence for each count was imposed to run concurrently.

The defendant was convicted earlier the same day in case No. 07 CR 319 of three other counts of forgery. Based upon these and other convictions, the presentence investigation report in case No. 07 CR 404 identified her criminal history as category E. She objected, arguing that her prior forgery convictions could not be used both to enhance her applicable penalty under the progressive sentencing scheme in K.S.A. 21-3710(b) and to increase her criminal history score. See K.S.A. 21-4710(d)(11).

The district court agreed and modified her criminal history from category E (three or more nonperson felonies) to category F (two nonperson felonies—one of the prior forgery convictions in case No. 07 CR 319 and the nonperson felony of attempted theft in Saline County in 2006 in case No. 06 CR 1423). The trial court rejected the State's argument that the mandatory 45 days in jail as a condition of probation did not enhance the penalty under Count 1 and also rejected the argument that her three forgery convictions in the instant case could serve as a justification for treating them as third or subsequent convictions.

On the State's appeal, the Court of Appeals determined that Arnett's three forgery convictions in the instant case were sufficient to warrant the district court sentencing her as a person with a third forgery conviction, thereby making all three of her prior forgery convictions in case No. 07 CR 319 available for use in computing her criminal history:

"Here, a third conviction existed at the time Arnett was sentenced in No. 07CR404 simply due to the three counts of forgery contained therein, to which Arnett pled guilty. The district court, by virtue of the three convictions, was required to sentence Arnett to the 45-day imprisonment term as a condition of her probation. Arnett's criminal history at the time of sentencing on No. 07CR404 should have included the three prior forgeries stemming from No. 07CR319 because none of those convictions

223 P.3d 783

were used to impose the mandatory jail term in 07CR404." Arnett, slip op. at 5.

Thus, the Court of Appeals vacated her sentence and remanded with directions that defendant be resentenced with a criminal history of E (three or more nonperson felonies). Arnett, slip op. at 5. Because the Court of Appeals reversed on this issue, it found it unnecessary to consider the State's argument that the 45-day term of imprisonment as a condition of Arnett's probation did not constitute an enhancement of the penalty under K.S.A. 21-4710(d)(11). Arnett, slip op. at 5.

We granted Arnett's petition for review wherein she claims that the trial court properly determined her criminal history was F. Her claim incorporates three questions:

(1) Did Arnett's three current forgery convictions in case No. 07 CR 404 provide a basis for treating her forgery conviction in Count 1 of that case as a third conviction;

(2) did the use of a conviction for both the purposes of the progressive sentencing scheme under K.S.A. 21-3710(b) and the calculation of a defendant's criminal history violate K.S.A. 21-4710(d)(11); and

(3) did the trial court err in setting defendant's criminal history as category F?

Arnett's case was heard concurrently with State v. Gilley, ___ Kan. ___, 223 P.3d 774, 2010 WL 204099 (No. 99,156, this day decided), because both cases raise the same questions for our review.

(1) DID DEFENDANT'S THREE CURRENT FORGERY CONVICTIONS IN CASE NO. 07 CR 404 PROVIDE A BASIS FOR TREATING HER FORGERY CONVICTION IN COUNT 1 OF THAT CASE AS A THIRD CONVICTION?

The defendant was charged with three counts of forgery under K.S.A. 21-3710(a). There was no indication in the complaint whether the three counts were charged as third offenses under the progressive sentencing scheme set forth in K.S.A. 21-3710(b)(4). However, it is clear from the record as a whole that all three of the charges were treated as third convictions upon defendant's plea to all charges in the complaint.

It is also clear from the record that when the defendant entered her plea to Count 1 of the complaint, the two remaining counts were criminal charges, not criminal forgery convictions. Thus, the remaining two charges could not serve...

To continue reading

Request your trial
227 practice notes
  • State v. Stafford, No. 103,521.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • December 14, 2012
    ...statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010). An appellate court's first attempt to ascertain legislative intent is through an analysis of the language employed, giving ordinary ......
  • State v. Llamas, No. 104,827.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • October 25, 2013
    ...of the statute's legislative history and defies our most fundamental rule of statutory construction. See State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010) (most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that intent of legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained). Today, I ......
  • State v. Schreiner, No. 104,149.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • November 4, 2011
    ...rape statute. The issue, thus presented, is one of law, affording this court unconstrained review. See State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010). Alternative means essentially entail materially different ways of committing a particular crime based on the statutory definition or ......
  • State v. Spencer, No. 101,077.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • March 18, 2011
    ...Law requires statutory interpretation or construction, over which this court has de novo review. See State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010). The fundamental rule [291 Kan. 821] “governing our interpretation is that ‘the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
227 cases
  • State v. Stafford, No. 103,521.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • December 14, 2012
    ...statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010). An appellate court's first attempt to ascertain legislative intent is through an analysis of the language employed, giving ordinary ......
  • State v. Llamas, No. 104,827.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • October 25, 2013
    ...of the statute's legislative history and defies our most fundamental rule of statutory construction. See State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010) (most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that intent of legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained). Today, I ......
  • State v. Schreiner, No. 104,149.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • November 4, 2011
    ...rape statute. The issue, thus presented, is one of law, affording this court unconstrained review. See State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010). Alternative means essentially entail materially different ways of committing a particular crime based on the statutory definition or ......
  • State v. Spencer, No. 101,077.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • March 18, 2011
    ...Law requires statutory interpretation or construction, over which this court has de novo review. See State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010). The fundamental rule [291 Kan. 821] “governing our interpretation is that ‘the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT