State v. Tims
Citation | 302 Kan. 536,355 P.3d 660 |
Decision Date | 14 August 2015 |
Docket Number | 109,472. |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Daniel W. TIMS, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Timothy Liesmann, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, was on the briefs for appellant.
Kevin P. Shepherd, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellee.
Daniel W. Tims appeals the Court of Appeals' decision in State v. Tims, 49 Kan.App.2d 845, 317 P.3d 115 (2014), reversing the district court's decision holding that Tims' 2002 uncounseled driving under the influence (DUI) diversion could not be counted as a prior DUI conviction for purposes of determining his sentence for his current DUI conviction. The Court of Appeals found that Tims' Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during the 2002 diversion proceedings. The court also concluded that though Tims had a statutory right to counsel during the diversion proceedings, the diversion agreement that Tims signed showed that he had validly waived this statutory right. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals determined that Tims' 2002 DUI diversion could be properly counted as a prior conviction and, thus, remanded Tims' case with directions that his current DUI conviction be classified and sentenced as a felony third DUI.
We granted Tims' petition for review to determine whether, absent a valid waiver of the right to counsel, an uncounseled DUI diversion can be considered as a prior conviction for classification and sentencing purposes in a subsequent DUI proceeding without violating a defendant's constitutional or statutory right to counsel.
Tims does not contest the accuracy of the Court of Appeals' recitation of the facts in its opinion. That portion of the opinion is quoted below:
The Court of Appeals, relying on State v. Key, 298 Kan. 315, 322–23, 312 P.3d 355 (2013) (), found that because Tims waived his right to a preliminary hearing, he waived his right to challenge the classification of the current DUI as a nonperson felony. Additionally, the panel, relying on State v. Bell, 268 Kan. 764, 768, 1 P.3d 325 (2000) ( ), and State v. Leslie, 237 Kan. 318, 319, 699 P.2d 510 (1985) ( ), concluded that once Tims waived his right to a preliminary hearing, the district court did not have the authority to reclassify the DUI charge as a misdemeanor. The panel also determined that because the State was challenging the legality of Tims' sentence based on the assertion that he should have received a sentence for a felony third DUI instead of a misdemeanor second DUI, the State's appeal was properly before it under K.S.A. 22–3504. Tims, 49 Kan.App.2d at 848–50, 317 P.3d 115. Tims did not challenge these conclusions in his petition for review and, thus, they are waived. See State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 125, 284 P.3d 251 (2012) ( ).
Regarding the merits of the State's argument, the panel found that the district court erred in not considering Tims' 2002 DUI diversion as a prior conviction for sentence enhancement purposes. Based on precedent from the United States Supreme Court and this court, the panel concluded that Tims' Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during the 2002 diversion proceedings and, thus, his diversion could be properly considered for sentencing purposes without violating his constitutional rights. The panel, however, found that based on K.S.A. 12–4416(a), Tims had a statutory right to counsel during the diversion conference with the city prosecutor. But based on the language within the diversion agreement that Tims signed, the panel concluded that Tims validly waived his statutory right to counsel. The panel specifically rejected Tims' argument that in order for his waiver to have been valid, there had to be a written certification from a municipal court judge stating that the judge fully advised Tims of his right to counsel and that Tims knowingly and voluntarily waived that right in front of the judge. The panel reasoned that because a diversion agreement is a contract solely between a prosecutor and a defendant, there was no need for a judge's certification on the diversion agreement. Thus, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court and remanded the case for resentencing as a felony conviction for a third DUI. Tims, 49 Kan.App.2d at 852–58, 317 P.3d 115.
Tims' failure to seek review of these procedural and jurisdictional conclusions on petition for review constitutes a waiver of the issues under State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 125, 284 P.3d 251 (2012). Yet, as noted by the Court of Appeals, appellate courts have a duty to question appellate jurisdiction sua sponte. Ryser v. State, 295 Kan. 452, 456, 284 P.3d 337 (2012). Our review of the proceedings in this case reveals a tangled web of procedural and jurisdictional issues which have not been adequately briefed or addressed by either party or fully considered by the panel below. As the State originally appealed the use of the prior uncounseled DUI diversion on alternate jurisdictional grounds, we elect to consider this appeal as a question reserved of statewide importance under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22–3602(b)(3), rather than an appeal from an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22–3504, cognizant that our review will have no effect on Tims' sentence. See State v. Berreth, 294 Kan. 98, 123, 273 P.3d 752 (2012) ().
In his petition for review, Tims argues that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that he did not have Sixth Amendment right to be represented by counsel when he entered into the 2002 DUI diversion agreement with the Topeka city prosecutor. As noted above, this conclusion led the Court of Appeals to hold that the diversion could be counted as a prior conviction for purposes of enhancing Tims' sentence for his current felony third DUI conviction without violating his constitutional rights.
Whether Tims had a constitutional right to counsel during the 2002 diversion proceedings raises a question of law subject to unlimited review. See State v. Jones, 290 Kan. 373, 376, 228 P.3d 394 (2010) ( ).
Based on the United States Supreme Court's holding in Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 658, 122 S.Ct. 1764, 152 L.Ed.2d 888 (2002), this court in State v. Youngblood, 288 Kan. 659, Syl. ¶ 2, 206 P.3d 518 (2009), held:
Further, we held in Youngblood that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction obtained in violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel (i.e., an uncounseled conviction that resulted in a prison sentence, even if the sentence was suspended or conditioned upon a term of probation) “may not be collaterally used for sentence enhancement in a subsequent criminal proceeding.” 288 Kan. 659, Syl. ¶ 3, 206 P.3d 518. Conversely, an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction that resulted in no prison sentence being imposed may be used to enhance punishment for a subsequent conviction without violating the Sixth Amendment. Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 748–49, 114 S.Ct. 1921, 128 L.Ed.2d 745 (1994) ; Youngblood, 288 Kan....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Dunn
...210 P.3d 625 (2009). We also apply de novo review to written instruments; and charging documents are writings. See State v. Tims , 302 Kan. 536, 546, 355 P.3d 660 (2015).Application of Today's Ruling to DunnDunn has advanced two challenges to Count 8 for forgery in Case 09 CR 333. His “main......
-
State v. Brazzle
...(2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 53) ("The court will not consider issues not presented or fairly included in the petition."); State v. Tims , 302 Kan. 536, 539-40, 355 P.3d 660 (2015) (noting that defendant's failure to seek review over procedural and jurisdictional conclusions on petition for review ......
-
Commonwealth v. Faherty
...568 U.S. 944, 133 S.Ct. 467, 184 L.Ed.2d 262 (2012) ; Morphew v. State, 672 N.E.2d 461, 465 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) ; State v. Tims, 302 Kan. 536, 541–543, 355 P.3d 660 (2015) ; State v. Cook, 706 A.2d 603, 607 (Me. 1998) ; People v. Reichenbach, 459 Mich. 109, 123–127, 587 N.W.2d 1 (1998) ; G......
-
State v. Mundo-Parra, No. 118,875
...potential jurisdictional argument that the State did not make since we have a duty to question our own jurisdiction. State v. Tims , 302 Kan. 536, 540, 355 P.3d 660 (2015). For us to have proper jurisdiction, the district court must also have had jurisdiction to consider Mundo-Parra's disco......