State v. Starbuck, 58484
| Citation | 715 P.2d 1291,239 Kan. 132 |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 58484,58484 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. James J. STARBUCK, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Page 1291
v.
James J. STARBUCK, Appellant.
Allegations of judicial misconduct during a probation revocation hearing must be decided on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding such alleged instances of misconduct. In order to warrant or require the granting of a new hearing it must affirmatively appear that the conduct was of such a nature that it prejudiced the substantial rights of the complaining party.
Daniel T. Brooks, Wichita, for appellant.
Geary N. Gorup, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued, and Kimberly Gee Vines, Asst. Dist. Atty., Clark V. Owens, Dist. Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., on brief, for appellee.
LOCKETT, Justice:
The defendant appeals from a decision of the Sedgwick County District Court revoking his probation claiming the judge's conduct denied him his constitutional right to due process.
Page 1292
James Junior Starbuck pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The victims of the crimes were the defendant's six- and eight-year-old stepdaughters. Starbuck received concurrent sentences of five to twenty years. After being committed to the custody of the Secretary of Corrections, Starbuck was granted probation by Judge Robert D. Watson upon certain conditions. Two of these conditions were:
"g. That defendant have no contact with defendant's stepdaughters ... until such time as the defendant's therapist and theirs, if applicable, agree that meeting in a family therapy session is appropriate.
"h. That defendant live and stay at some place other than the home [in] which [the stepdaughters] reside with their mother, Deanna Dorene Starbuck, until such time as reuniting is approved by all therapists involved, and until prior approval of the sentencing court and of the Sedgwick County District Attorney has been obtained in a formal hearing in Sedgwick County District Court."
The defendant moved to Topeka and was supervised by a Shawnee County probation officer.
The State charged that Starbuck had violated conditions "g" and "h" of his probation agreement. On June 27, 1985, Judge [239 Kan. 133] Watson conducted a probation revocation hearing. At the hearing, Deanna D. Starbuck testified that although the defendant had stayed overnight with her in the home where her daughters lived, he had never stayed there while the girls were present. The girls often stayed at her parents' home so that she could be with the defendant.
Mrs. Starbuck's mother, Evelyn Neely, testified that she had seen the defendant with the two girls without their mother since his release on probation. A friend who stayed with Deanna Starbuck in her home for two months testified that the defendant spent the night in the house several times while the girls were present.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gadelkarim, 69897
...v. Anderson, 243 Kan. 677, 677-78, 763 P.2d 597 (1988); State v. Hamilton, 240 Kan. 539, 541-47, 731 P.2d 863 (1987); State v. Starbuck, 239 Kan. 132, 133-35, 715 P.2d 1291 (1986); State v. Lake, 12 Kan.App.2d 275, 740 P.2d 106, rev. denied 242 Kan. 905 (1987). Hamilton is the sole case in ......
-
State v. Hayden, 88,650.
...stands accused of unspeakably horrendous crimes. It is our view that this defendant did not get a fair trial. In State v. Starbuck, 239 Kan. 132, 134, 715 P.2d 1291 (1986), this court "Canon 3 of the rules relating to judicial conduct requires that a judge be patient, dignified, and courteo......
-
State v. Scales, 74361
...life, liberty or property are notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." State v. Starbuck, 239 Kan. 132, 134, 715 P.2d 1291 (1986). We have emphasized due process rights during sentencing proceedings in past In State v. Grantom, 229 Kan. 517, 62......
-
State v. Bennett, 98,038.
...court has broad discretion to impose any conditions of probation that the court deems "proper." K.S.A. 21-4610(c); State v. Starbuck, 239 Kan. 132, 133, 715 P.2d 1291 (1986). Kansas courts have consistently recognized, however, that a district court does not have discretion to impose probat......