State v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 16 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 78,586,78,586 |
| Citation | 267 Kan. 15,977 P.2d 960 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Susieanna D. COOPER, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An illegal sentence is a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction; a sentence which does not conform to the statutory provision, either in the character or the term of the punishment authorized; or a sentence which is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served.
2. In a criminal case where the defendant is ordered to pay reparation or restitution, it is held that when the trial court timely orders reparation or restitution to be made, the trial court has discretion to extend the time to set the amount. Under the facts of this case, it was not an illegal sentence or an abuse of discretion to set the amount of reparation or restitution at a later date.
J. Brent Getty, assistant appellate defender, argued the cause, and Ryan Kipling Elliot, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, were with him on the brief for appellant.
Doyle Baker, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Nola Foulston, district attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal by defendant Susieanna D. Cooper from an order requiring her to pay $2,500 in medical expenses incurred by Terri Ferris as a condition of probation.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had no jurisdiction to order reparation or restitution due to the State's failure to submit an amount of restitution within 30 days of the imposition of sentence as ordered by the trial court. This court accepted review of that issue.
Cooper pled nolo contendere to aggravated battery. Ferris was the victim of that battery. Cooper and Ferris had a verbal confrontation at the home of Cooper's boyfriend. Ferris left the home but returned to retrieve personal property left at the home. Ferris banged on the door and windows and broke three windows. Cooper attacked Ferris with a knife, and Ferris suffered cuts to her face, right leg, arms, and stomach.
The trial court sentenced Cooper to 2 years' presumptive probation. The State informed the court it would request restitution, but it did not have the necessary documentation at the time of sentencing to request the specific amount of restitution. Cooper's attorney wanted an opportunity to review the records to determine which of Ferris' injuries were caused by Cooper and which were caused by Ferris herself when she broke the windows.
The State informed the court it would have the documentation to determine the specific amount of restitution within 30 days. The trial court then ordered Cooper to pay restitution, "with that amount to be determined within 30 days." The trial court instructed the State to furnish Cooper's counsel with any documentation supporting restitution. Further, if counsel could not agree on the amount, the court would hold a hearing to determine the amount.
Three days later the State received the documentation from the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS), showing that SRS had paid $4,890.86 in medical expenses. The State, by its own admission, failed to do anything with the notice of expenses from SRS. Nearly 6 months later, SRS requested a copy of the journal entry setting restitution, and the State realized its mistake.
The State then filed a motion requesting that SRS be reimbursed for medical expenses paid by SRS. Cooper responded that restitution was inappropriate for three reasons: (1) The State filed its motion nearly 6 months after the sentencing hearing; (2) it was impossible to tell what part of the medical expenses was due to Ferris' own actions and what part was due to Cooper's actions; and (3) Cooper was disabled, due to a brain stem injury, with an income of only $420 per month from a disability check and, thus, it would be impossible for her to pay her living expenses while making restitution.
The trial court, after hearing statements of counsel and reviewing the SRS documentation (which is not in the record on appeal), held that at least one-half of the medical expenses were attributable to the injuries inflicted by Cooper and ordered Cooper to pay $2,500 as reparation or restitution. Cooper appealed, and a panel of the Court of Appeals held that the trial court lost jurisdiction to modify the sentence due to the passage of time. The panel reasoned that the trial court lost jurisdiction to modify the sentence 120 days after imposition of the original sentence, citing State v. Hooks, 256 Kan. 869, 870, 888 P.2d 853 (1995). We note the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act applies to this case (effective July 1, 1993); thus, the 120-day callback statute applicable to cases prior to July 1, 1993, is not applicable to this case. See State v. Miller, 260 Kan. 892, 926 P.2d 652 (1996). Thus, Hooks is not applicable because it dealt with pre-July 1, 1993, convictions.
The panel was persuaded by the possibility that Cooper's probation would be extended beyond the statutory sentence range unless the statutorily mandated reparation or restitution was paid. Thus, the panel held the sentence to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Armstrong
...of restitution. In arguing this procedure was erroneous, Armstrong requests that this court overturn its holding in State v. Cooper, 267 Kan. 15, 18–19, 977 P.2d 960 (1999), that a sentencing judge has discretion to extend the time to set a restitution amount if restitution has been ordered......
-
State v. Marinelli
...later set the exact amount of restitution to be paid after it has completed pronouncing sentence from the bench . State v. Cooper , 267 Kan. 15, 18-19, 977 P.2d 960 (1999)." ( Emphasis added.) 291 Kan. at 36, 238 P.3d 246.The court then held the district court had authority to postpone the ......
-
State v. Hall
...modified the sentence imposed during the first hearing. The Court of Appeals panel held that this court's decision in State v. Cooper, 267 Kan. 15, 977 P.2d 960 (1999), controlled. Hall, 2010 WL 5490727, at *2. Under Cooper, a district court could order restitution at sentencing but had dis......
-
State v. Frierson
...subject matter jurisdiction to modify restitution by the August 19, 2009, sentencing order. The panel held that State v. Cooper, 267 Kan. 15, 17–19, 977 P.2d 960 (1999) (district court retains jurisdiction when setting restitution amount at later date), controlled. Frierson, 2011 WL 4716340......