State v. Ottinger
| Decision Date | 14 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 104,364.,104,364. |
| Citation | 264 P.3d 1027,46 Kan.App.2d 647 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee,v.Troy OTTINGER, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
1. On appeal, the question of whether the defense of compulsion is available to a defendant is an issue of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.
2. Generally, the compulsion defense is a recognized statutory defense in Kansas under the limited circumstances stated in K.S.A. 21–3209.
3. The plain language of K.S.A. 21–3209(1) does not preclude an escapee from
using the compulsion defense if the escapee reasonably believes that death or great bodily harm will be inflicted upon him or upon his spouse, parent, child, brother, or sister if he does not perform such conduct.
4. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, an appellate court may not read into the statute, or add something not readily found in the statute.
5. Probation is an act of grace by the sentencing judge and, unless otherwise required by law, is granted as a privilege, not as a matter of right. Once the State has proven a violation of the conditions of probation, probation revocation is within the sound discretion of the district court.
6. A district court abuses its discretion when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the district court, then it cannot be said that the district court abused its discretion.
7. State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 41 P.3d 781 (2002), is discussed and applied.
8. This court is duty bound to follow Kansas Supreme Court precedent absent some indication the Supreme Court is departing from its previous position.
Joanna Labastida, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.Before MARQUARDT, P.J., BUSER and ATCHESON, JJ.MARQUARDT, J.
Troy Ottinger appeals the district court's revocation of his probation in case 08CR3127, the grant of the State's motion in limine, and his conviction and sentence for aggravated escape in case 09CR2900. The district court ordered Ottinger to serve his underlying 13–month prison sentence in case 08CR3127 and sentenced him in case 09CR2900 to a consecutive sentence of 14 months in prison. We affirm.
On January 20, 2009, Ottinger pled no contest in case 08CR3127 to two counts of forgery and two counts of identity fraud. Even though the district court sentenced Ottinger to 13 months in prison, he was granted probation for 18 months. As conditions of his probation, Ottinger was ordered to complete the Sedgwick County Community Corrections Program at the Adult Residential Center (the Center), have no contact with his wife, a codefendant in the case, and not possess or consume alcohol or drugs.
Ottinger entered the Center on July 29, 2009, and was ordered to stay at the Center for a minimum of 120 days. He was not allowed to leave unless he had permission from a supervisor. On August 27, 2009, Ottinger met with Intensive Supervision Officer Kim Haas and asked for permission to leave the facility in order to acquire a bicycle for travel to and from work. At the meeting, Haas noted that Ottinger appeared “jumpy and had trouble standing still.” Haas suspected that Ottinger was using drugs, and a UA test confirmed Haas' suspicion. Notwithstanding the positive UA, Hass granted Ottinger permission to leave the facility from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. the next day to get a bicycle.
Ottinger left the facility at 7:53 a.m. on August 28, 2009. When Ottinger did not return at 11 a.m., a warrant was issued for his arrest. Ottinger was arrested on September 29, 2009, and was charged in case 09CR2900 with aggravated escape from custody.
Before Ottinger's preliminary hearing, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit Ottinger from testifying that he did not return to the Center because he needed to care for his wife and son. He claimed his wife was suicidal; therefore, the defense of compulsion applied. On November 18 and 19, 2009, the district court held a combined preliminary hearing and a hearing on the State's motion in limine.
The district court granted the State's motion in limine after it determined that Ottinger failed to meet all of the five conditions established in State v. Irons, 250 Kan. 302, 307–09, 827 P.2d 722 (1992). Citing State v. Kelly, 21 Kan.App.2d 114, 115, 896 P.2d 1101, rev. denied 258 Kan. 861 (1995), the district court also determined the compulsion defense was not available to an escapee when the imminent threat is not to the escapee but to a third party.
The district court found Ottinger (1) had many opportunities to, but did not, lodge a complaint to authorities, (2) provided no evidence that the result of any complaint would have been illusory, and (3) failed to contact authorities when he attained a position of safety from the imminent threat.
On January 14, 2010, the aggravated escape from custody case proceeded to a bench trial on stipulated facts. The stipulated facts in their entirety were:
Ottinger acknowledged the district court's order granting the State's motion in limine; however, he requested a continuing objection to the order. He proffered that he left the Center out of concern for his wife who suffered from various mental health issues, was addicted to methamphetamines, and had attempted suicide several times in the past. Further, he claimed he could not tell an administrator at the Center because they would not let him leave. A condition of Ottinger's probation was that he was prohibited from having any contact with his wife. If he had asked for a pass to see his wife, Haas testified that it would not have been granted.
Ottinger testified that he located his wife in a drug house 4 days after leaving the Center but claimed he could not contact the Center because his wife would have viewed that as a betrayal. He testified that he intended to transport his wife to the State of Washington after she got some money so she could see her kids. However, on September 29, 2009, Ottinger and his wife were arrested before they could make the trip. Based on the stipulated facts and the evidence presented at trial, the district court found Ottinger guilty of aggravated escape from custody.
At a joint probation revocation and sentencing hearing, the district court stated that Ottinger violated his probation by testing positive for amphetamines, by failing to return to the Center, and by committing aggravated escape from custody while on probation. The district court ordered Ottinger to serve his prison sentence of 13 months in case 08CR3127 and consecutive 14 months in case 09CR2900. Ottinger timely appeals.
On appeal, Ottinger argues the district court deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial and his right to present a compulsion defense when it granted the State's motion in limine.
The question of whether the defense of compulsion is available to a defendant is an issue of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review. Kelly, 21 Kan.App.2d at 115, 896 P.2d 1101; State v. Pichon, 15 Kan.App.2d 527, 536, 811 P.2d 517, rev. denied 249 Kan. 778 (1991).
Generally, the compulsion defense is a recognized statutory defense in Kansas under limited circumstances stated in K.S.A. 21–3209:
“(1) A person is not guilty of a crime other than murder or voluntary manslaughter by reason of conduct which he performs under the compulsion or threat of the imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, if he reasonably believes that death or great bodily harm will be inflicted upon him or upon his spouse, parent, child, brother or sister if he does not perform such conduct.
“(2) The defense provided by this section is not available to one who willfully or wantonly places himself in a situation in which it is probable that he will be subjected to compulsion or threat.”
In Pichon, a panel of this court examined People v. Lovercamp, 43 Cal.App.3d 823, 831–32, 118 Cal.Rptr. 110 (1974), and adopted five conditions that must exist before an escaped prisoner may claim the defense of compulsion:
“ ‘(1) The prisoner is faced with a specific threat of death, forcible sexual attack or substantial bodily injury in the immediate future;
“ ‘(2) There is no time for a complaint to the authorities or there exists a history of futile complaints which makes any result from such complaints illusory;
“ ‘(3) There is no time or opportunity to resort to the courts;
“ ‘(4) There is no evidence of force or violence used towards prison personnel or other “innocent” persons in the escape; and
“ ‘(...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Belone
...follow Kansas Supreme Court precedent, absent some indication the court is departing from its previous position. State v. Ottinger, 46 Kan.App.2d 647, 655, 264 P.3d 1027 (2011), rev. denied 294 Kan. 946 (2012). Our Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its holding in Ivory, ruling that the use ......
-
State v. Smith
...as nonperson felonies. 299 Kan. at 319, 323 P.3d 846. Because we are bound by Supreme Court precedent, State v. Ottinger, 46 Kan.App.2d 647, 655, 264 P.3d 1027 (2011), rev. denied 294 Kan. 946 (2012), we must conclude the district court erred by scoring Smith's Michigan conviction as a pers......
-
State v. Boysaw
...Kansas Supreme Court is departing from this position, this court is duty bound to follow established precedent. State v. Ottinger, 46 Kan.App.2d 647, 655, 264 P.3d 1027 (2011). The district court properly used Boysaw's criminal history to establish his ...
-
State v. Kelsey
...Supreme Court precedent, unless there is some indication the court is departing from its previous position. State v. Ottinger, 46 Kan. App. 2d 647, 655, 264 P.3d 1027 (2011), rev. denied 294 Kan. 946 (2012). We have found no indication of an intention to depart. Accordingly, we must decide ......