State v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 23 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 122,251 |
| Parties | State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Dustin Blake Robinson, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from Johnson District Court; DANIEL W. VOKINS, judge. Affirmed.
Dustin B. Robinson, appellant pro se.
Stephanie B. Poyer, of Butler &Associates, P.A., of Topeka, for appellee.
Before CLINE, P.J., ATCHESON and COBLE, JJ.
Dustin Blake Robinson pled guilty to seven counts of marijuana-related charges. As part of his sentence, the district court ordered him to pay restitution in addition to various court costs and fees. While Robinson was serving his prison sentence a couple of years later, the district court assigned his court-related debt to a collection agency under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 20-169. On appeal, Robinson argues the district court assigned the costs and fees for collection without following all statutory requirements and improperly assigned his restitution debt. He also argues the district court erred when it ordered him to pay a $400 fee for lab testing. But as will be shown, even if Robinson's restitution was improperly assigned for collection, no money was collected as a result, so he suffered no legal injury. Robinson also fails to meet his burden of showing the district court erred by assigning his costs and fees for collection and in ordering the $400 lab fee. For these reasons, we affirm the district court's orders.
In December 2014, Robinson pled guilty to seven crimes related to the distribution of marijuana, including two counts of distribution of marijuana and one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. At his sentencing hearing on February 5, 2015, the district court sentenced Robinson to 101 months in prison and 36 months' postrelease supervision under a presumptive guidelines sentence. During the sentencing hearing, on the record, the district court ordered Robinson to pay restitution in the amount of $900 to reimburse the Overland Park Police Department for drug purchase money paid to the defendant by a confidential informant (CI). Although restitution was discussed on the record during the sentencing hearing, the district court did not mention any court costs. The district court's oral and written orders did not state when Robinson would begin restitution payments. Robinson's counsel did not object to the costs or restitution order.
On the same day as the sentencing hearing, a separate docket entry in the district court case history shows the imposition of court costs in the amount of $194.50. Three weeks later, on February 25, 2015, the district court filed a journal entry of judgment. In the journal entry, the district court imposed the $900 restitution order and court costs totaling $545 including a $400 crime lab fee, $100 Board of Indigents' Defense Services (BIDS) application fee, and a $45 fingerprint fee. The "Total Costs" line of the journal entry does not state a numeral but simply notes "ORD," and the $194.50 court costs previously reflected on the docket were inexplicably missing from the journal entry.
Robinson directly appealed his sentence, but after his appointed counsel reviewed the record and noted the appellate court may not review a sentence within the presumptive range per K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6820(c)(1), Robinson's appeal was summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court. State v. Robinson, No. 120,641 (order filed February 28, 2020).
A payment ledger shows Robinson made one payment toward his restitution in late 2016 and another in early 2017 ($36.14 on November 8, 2016, and $5.44 on February 27, 2017). He also submitted two payments toward general costs in early 2017 in the amount of $18.99 on March 27, 2017, and $20.34 on April 10, 2017.
On February 21, 2017-prior to Robinson's second restitution payment and his cost payments-the district court assigned his court-related debt to the debt collection firm of Butler &Associates. This assignment is noted on the district court's case history report as simply "Sent to Debt Collection." In the formal record on appeal, there is no accompanying order or notation which signifies what portion of Robinson's debt was assigned or any total amount assigned for collection.
After this assignment of Robinson's debt, a request and order for garnishment was filed on May 30, 2017. Nine days later, the garnishment was released. Although neither the order nor the release is included in the record on appeal, the notations for both filings are evident from the district court's case history. Robinson then moved to quash the garnishment before the district court. In a written journal entry filed April 4, 2018, the district court denied Robinson's objection to the garnishment of fines, fees, and costs, but found restitution would not be garnishable "until Defendant is no longer incarcerated" as a result of this case.
Robinson then moved to alter or amend that order, which the district court denied in October 2018, finding Robinson's motion to be moot because "[n]o monies have been collected as a result of garnishment." In the same order, the district court noted that on February 5, 2015, it ordered Robinson "to pay $739.50 in court costs and fees." The district court also assessed a collection fee of $230.40, citing K.S.A. 20-169(c)(5). See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 20-169(c)(5) (). In denying Robinson's motion to alter or amend, the district court noted that the prior nonwage garnishment was released, and no funds had been collected on the garnishment. The district court also noted that although Robinson had made voluntary payments toward restitution, no garnishments had been issued for collection of restitution, and reiterated that restitution would not be collected while Robinson was incarcerated for this case. The district court found Robinson "knew of the order to pay court costs and fees at sentencing," and he received due process because the "[c]ourt considered his pleadings and motions when issuing its April 2, 2018, order."
After the district court denied Robinson's motion to alter or amend, Robinson filed five new pro se motions requesting relief from the court-ordered costs, fees, and restitution. In October 2019, the district court denied relief on all motions, finding it had previously denied Robinson's objection to the garnishments and he did not raise a new factual or legal basis to support his motions.
Robinson appeals.
Robinson presents these issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred by assigning the court costs and fees to a collection agency; (2) whether the district court erred by assigning the restitution order to a collection agency; (3) whether the district court properly ordered him to pay a crime lab fee; and (4) whether the district court erred by assigning the restitution or costs to collection without notice. Each issue is addressed in turn.
The district court did not err in assigning Robinson's statutory court costs and fees to a contracting agent under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 20-169.
We first address Robinson's challenge to the collection of his court costs and fees through a contracting agent under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 20-169. As such, this issue involves the interpretation of K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 20-169. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review. State v Stoll, 312 Kan. 726, 736, 480 P.3d 158 (2021).
As a threshold issue, we first note the appropriateness of the court costs and fees assessed to Robinson. As persistently noted by our courts, the "requirement that a convicted defendant assume liability for court costs has long been a part of Kansas law." State v. Dean, 12 Kan.App.2d 321, 323, 743 P.2d 98 (1987); State v. Granville, 26 Kan. 158, Syl. ¶ 1, 1881 WL 866 (1881) ().
Each of the costs and fees assessed to Robinson were statutorily authorized. K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6604 authorizes a district court to order a defendant to pay a variety of costs and fees associated with a criminal conviction. The BIDS application fee is a part of costs. See State v. Phillips, 289 Kan. 28, 39, 210 P.3d 93 (2009); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6604(a)(9); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-4529. And the court costs assessed (here in the amount of $194.50) are mandated by K.S.A. 22-3801, which requires court costs to be taxed against a defendant convicted in a criminal case. The $45 fingerprint fee is authorized under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 12-16,119(a) and the $400 crime lab fee is required under K.S.A. 28-176(a) as addressed in our discussion below.
And although it may be a better practice to do so, our Supreme Court and multiple panels of this court have found no express requirement that these costs and fees be mentioned on the record during the sentencing hearing, because they are nonpunitive in nature and not a part of the sentence. See Phillips, 289 Kan. 28, Syl. ¶¶ 2-3, 5 ( the booking fee and BIDS application fee to be costs, and K.S.A. 22-3803 does not require the defendant's presence or the imposition of costs at the sentencing hearing); State v. Doornbos, No. 120,969, 2020 WL 288538, at *1-2 (Kan. App. 2020) (unpublished opinion) () ; see also State v. Clay, No. 118,878, 2018 WL 4039057, at *2 (Kan....
To continue reading
Request your trial