State v. Hall

• Citation: 195 P.3d 220
• Decision Date: 31 October 2008
• Docket Number: No. 95,896.,95,896.
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Eric Eugene HALL, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas

195 P.3d 220

STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Eric Eugene HALL, Appellant.

No. 95,896.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

October 31, 2008.

Rachel L. Pickering, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause, and Jay Witt, of the same office, was with her on the briefs for appellant.

Ty Kaufman, county attorney, argued the cause, and Paul J. Morrison, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellee.

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

This appeal raises the issue of whether a 6-year delay between issuance and execution of a probation revocation warrant was unreasonable, constituting a denial of due process that deprived the district court of jurisdiction over a probation violator who was imprisoned on unrelated charges. To resolve this issue, we must determine two questions of first impression in Kansas: (1) Does the State waive a probation violation if it lodges a detainer but does not conduct a probation revocation hearing while the probationer is imprisoned on an unrelated felony conviction arising in another county and (2) if not, what standard applies for determining if an alleged probation violator's due process has been violated because of the delay?

These issues arose when Eric Eugene Hall was served with a probation revocation warrant 6 years after the warrant was issued in a McPherson County case. The warrant was served immediately upon Hall's release from prison on an unrelated felony conviction arising in Saline County. The Saline County conviction served as the basis for an allegation that Hall had failed to remain law abiding in violation of the terms of his McPherson County probation.

The probation revocation warrant was issued within weeks of Hall's conviction in Saline County. At that point he had served less than 1 year of his 3-year probation in the McPherson County case.

The State made no effort to execute the warrant. Instead, it apparently lodged a detainer with prison officials who had custody of Hall under the authority of the Saline County sentence, which had been ordered to run consecutive to the McPherson County conviction. We use the word "apparently" because there is no direct evidence establishing this fact in the record on appeal. Perhaps in an attempt to remedy this omission, the State added an appendix to its brief, which included an affidavit establishing that the detainer had been lodged shortly after the warrant issued. We cannot consider the affidavit, however, because it is not included in the record on appeal. See Supreme Court Rule 6.02(f) (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 37) (allowing appendix to appellant's brief to include "limited extracts from the record on appeal"; appendix is "not to be considered as a substitute for the record itself"); Supreme Court Rule 6.03(e) (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 40) (allowing appendix to appellee's brief and incorporating requirements and restrictions of Rule 6.02[f]).

Nevertheless, we accept that the detainer was lodged against Hall because the parties do not dispute its existence, and the record contains several indirect references to the detainer and its effect. Most significantly, the record contains copies of two letters from Hall to the district judge in which Hall referred to the detainer and requested resolution of the pending revocation motion. The first letter was dated February 10, 2002, and indicated that the unresolved detainer from McPherson County rendered Hall ineligible for reintegration and work release programs. Because he was ineligible for these programs, Hall requested the appointment of counsel and a hearing. Apparently Hall did not receive a response because he wrote again on July 6, 2004, seeking resolution of the pending detainer and probation revocation motion.

Following the first letter, the State drafted an order to transport Hall to McPherson County. The order was executed by the district court and filed on March 27, 2002, but the record is silent regarding what became of this order. All we know is that there was no action until Hall was released from prison on July 18, 2005, after having served his sentence in the Saline County case. Hall was immediately taken into custody on the McPherson County warrant and transported to McPherson County. Counsel was appointed, and a hearing was promptly conducted.

At the hearing, Hall did not contest the fact that he had violated conditions of release. Nevertheless, relying on State v. Grimsley, 15 Kan.App.2d 441, 808 P.2d 1387 (1991), he moved for dismissal on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction due to the State's delay in prosecuting the motion; Hall argued the delay violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The district court rejected Hall's contention and stated:

"[T]he issue becomes one of whether or not the State is obligated to bring the defendant back while he is in prison to do the motion to revoke probation. I have not yet seen a case that speaks to that issue when it's in court. However, I agree with the State that the issues normally raised on failure to grant a speedy trial, so forth, or a detainer claim filed by a defendant is not applicable because it doesn't go to the issue of sentencing or speedy trial or any of those issues. They've already been sentenced. I've always proceeded under the assumption the State does not have that duty that they can simply wait until they're discharged, although I think the better practice is to bring them back, but that's not my call. Until the Supreme Court tells me they have to bring them back when they're in prison I don't feel it has application."

The district court revoked Hall's probation and ordered him to serve the original prison sentence.

On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded with instructions to discharge Hall. State v. Hall, 38 Kan.App.2d 465, 167 P.3d 382 (2007). The panel held that the State failed to timely execute the bench warrant against Hall. Relying on State v. Haines, 30 Kan.App.2d 110, 39 P.3d 95, rev. denied 273 Kan. 1038 (2002), the panel concluded the State waived the probation violation, meaning Hall need not prove actual prejudice caused by the delay. 38 Kan.App.2d at 469, 167 P.3d 382.

The panel recognized the unique issue in this case—i.e., the delay being explained by the defendant's imprisonment—but concluded that was not a sufficient basis to deviate from the Haines waiver doctrine. In the panel's view, six factors in the record on appeal supported its conclusion: (1) the State's inability to explain the delay; (2) the fact that Hall could have been transported to McPherson County for revocation proceedings during his imprisonment on the Saline County convictions; (3) Hall's unanswered correspondence requesting timely resolution of the revocation motion; (4) the State's failure to comply with the district court's order to transport Hall back to McPherson County to resolve the revocation matter; (5) the unresolved detainer's potential prejudice to Hall and its impact on program eligibility during his imprisonment; and (6) the emotional anxiety of waiting 6 years to learn of the outcome of the revocation motion. 38 Kan.App.2d at 471, 167 P.3d 382.

The State filed a petition for review, arguing the waiver doctrine should not apply and that Hall had failed to establish a due process violation. To support its arguments, the State cited additional authority, including a United States Supreme Court case that addressed whether due process requires execution of a parole or probation violation warrant when the defendant is imprisoned on an intervening sentence. We granted review. See K.S.A. 60-2101(b); K.S.A. 20-3018(b).

The questions raised in this appeal are governed by the overarching concern of assuring compliance with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Due Process Clause imposes procedural and substantive due process requirements whenever the State deprives someone of liberty, such as through the revocation of an individual's probation. State v. Walker, 260 Kan. 803, 808-09, 926 P.2d 218 (1996). Among the demands of due process are the requirements that a court have jurisdiction before depriving someone of liberty and, when revoking probation, that the court comply with the minimum procedural safeguards outlined in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). 260 Kan. at 809, 926 P.2d 218.

An appellate court considering whether a district court complied with these due process requirements applies an unlimited standard of review. This conclusion results from the overlay of several considerations that are a part of our analysis. First, the question of whether a court has jurisdiction is a question of law. State v. Johnson, 283 Kan. 649, 652, 156 P.3d 596 (2007); State v. Rocha, 30 Kan.App.2d 817, 819, 48 P.3d 683 (2002). Second, the question of whether there has been a violation of constitutional due process rights also raises a question of law. State v. Holt, 285 Kan. 760, 774, 175 P.3d 239 (2008). Finally, a court's subject matter jurisdiction is defined by statute, and the interpretation of a statute is a question of law subject to unlimited review. State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 67, 159 P.3d 985 (2007).

In reviewing an allegation that due process was violated because the district court did not have jurisdiction, the first concern is whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction. Jurisdiction to revoke probation is governed by K.S.A. 22-3716(a), which provides that "[a]t any time during probation, ... the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a defendant for violation of any of the conditions of release or assignment." As the Court of Appeals stated in Rocha, a "reasonable construction" of K.S.A. 22-3716(a) is that "revocation of probation may properly occur after...