State v. Young

• Decision Date: 09 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. 119,265,119,265
• Citation: 490 P.3d 1183
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Paul B. YOUNG, Appellant.

490 P.3d 1183

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Paul B. YOUNG, Appellant.

No. 119,265

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed July 9, 2021.

Sam Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the briefs for appellant.

Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

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

Paul B. Young committed a felony while on probation for another felony conviction. The sentencing judge ordered Young to serve the presumptive sentence for his new conviction under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6801 et seq. The judge also ordered Young to serve his new sentence consecutive to the sentence for the earlier crime. This order applied K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6606, which directs sentencing judges to impose a consecutive sentence in certain circumstances that include when the defendant commits a crime while on probation for a felony. Young appeals, contending the sentencing judge erred by ordering him to serve a consecutive sentence. He argues the judge should have applied K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819(a), which allows a judge to impose concurrent sentences if the term of imprisonment resulting from application of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6606 would be manifestly unjust.

The Court of Appeals panel hearing Young's appeal did not reach the merits of his arguments, however. Instead, the panel's majority decided appellate courts lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Those judges reasoned that the sentencing judge imposed a presumptive sentence and Kansas appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review presumptive sentences because of a jurisdictional limitation imposed in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(c)(1). State v. Young , 56 Kan. App. 2d 1146, 1149, 1153, 442 P.3d 543 (2019). One judge dissented, concluding the presumptive sentence definition in the KSGA does not cover the rule in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6606 requiring a consecutive sentence when a defendant commits a crime while on felony probation. She thus reasoned the restriction on appellate review of presumptive sentences did not extend to decisions about whether manifest injustice results from consecutive sentences. 56 Kan. App. 2d at 1153-54, 442 P.3d 543 (Arnold-Burger, C.J., dissenting).

We agree with the dissenting view that the definition of a presumptive sentence does not envelope the sentencing judge's decision about whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. Even so, the Legislature did not allow appellate review of decisions to impose consecutive sentences imposed under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6606. Instead, it instructed that K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820 applies "to sentences imposed pursuant to a presumptive sentencing guidelines system " of "the revised Kansas sentencing guidelines act, article 68 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated." (Emphasis added). K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3602(f). The provisions in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6606, directing consecutive sentences in Young's situation, and K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819(a), providing the manifest injustice exception to the directive in 21-6606, are part of the legislatively prescribed presumptive sentencing guidelines system . K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820 thus dictates appellate jurisdiction over sentences imposed under the presumptive guideline system even if a sentencing judge imposes a presumptive sentence , such as Young's. And K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820 does not supply appellate jurisdiction over a sentencing judge's discretionary determination that manifest injustice does not arise from consecutive sentences imposed under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6606.

We thus hold we lack jurisdiction, and we affirm the Court of Appeals decision to dismiss this appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2017, the State charged Young with his fourth offense of violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq. The State alleged that he did not register the address of his new residence within three business days of moving as KORA mandates. Young was on probation from a 2016 conviction for a KORA violation when he committed the 2017 offense.

Young pleaded guilty in the 2017 case without reaching an underlying plea agreement with the State. Before sentencing, he moved for a durational departure based on mitigating factors. In his motion, Young characterized the circumstances of his violation as an unfortunate misunderstanding. Young said his employer paid him to remodel a home and suggested he might be able to rent the home from the owner. The employer also moved some furniture into the home for Young's use. But the property owner had rented the residence and told Young to remove the belongings. Young said he could not do so immediately, and ultimately the property owner called police who arrested Young for trespassing and failing to register a new address.

Young, while admitting he did not register within three days of changing his residence as required by KORA, argued he had only been at the new place for eight days. He also pointed out that he took responsibility for his failure by pleading guilty even without a plea agreement. And 18 years had passed since he committed the crime that caused his KORA registration obligation—a conviction of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under 14 years.

At the sentencing hearing, Young's attorney repeated the arguments in Young's motion and asked the court to impose a departure sentence. He also asked the judge to find that consecutive sentences would be manifestly unjust and to impose concurrent sentences. The assistant district attorney disagreed with Young's characterization of the facts, saying he was trying to manipulate the system. She argued that Young told deputies he had been staying at the new residence for about three weeks and that deputies found clothing and furniture there. She also pointed out that Young had three prior convictions of failing to register and was aware of the registration requirements.

The sentencing judge denied Young's motion. The judge did not use the words "manifest injustice," but he declined to find "substantial and compelling" reasons to grant a departure. The judge first revoked probation and imposed the underlying 61-month sentence in the 2016 case. He then imposed the presumptive minimum sentence of 89 months for the 2017 case. This sentence reflected the mitigated term in the grid box corresponding with the severity level of Young's offense and his criminal history. The judge ordered Young to serve the 89 months consecutive to the sentence in the 2016 case.

Young appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the judge erred in not finding manifest injustice resulted from the consecutive sentences. The State responded, arguing appellate courts could not review decisions about whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences when a judge imposes presumptive sentences as it had when sentencing Young.

A majority of the Court of Appeals panel agreed with the State's argument and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Citing K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(c)(1), the majority noted appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review a sentence within the presumptive guidelines range. Young , 56 Kan. App. 2d at 1149, 1153, 442 P.3d 543. A dissenting member of the panel concluded a determination that manifest injustice did not arise from consecutive sentences falls outside the jurisdictional limitations of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820 and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction. But, moving to the merits of the motion, she concluded the sentencing judge did not abuse his discretion when he imposed consecutive sentences. 56 Kan. App. 2d at 1153, 442 P.3d 543 (Arnold-Burger, C.J., dissenting).

Young timely filed a petition for review, which this court granted.

ANALYSIS

Young argues the Court of Appeals majority erred because he is not appealing from the presumptive sentence. Rather, he appeals the judge's decision to order him to serve consecutive sentences and the judge's negative implicit finding that no manifest injustice resulted from the cumulative length of the two sentences. He urges us to adopt the Court of Appeals' dissent and hold we have jurisdiction under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3602, which broadly grants jurisdiction. He also urges us to reach the merits of whether manifest injustice resulted. On this point, he asks us to disagree with the dissent and to reverse and remand his case for resentencing.

We necessarily begin our analysis of Young's appeal by analyzing whether we have jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction must be our starting point because Kansas courts have the judicial power to decide only those matters over which they have jurisdiction. State v. Smith , 309 Kan. 977, 982, 441 P.3d 1041 (2019). Thus, "[i]f subject matter jurisdiction is in question, that issue needs to be resolved first. The merits come second." State v. Huerta , 291 Kan. 831, 840-41, 247 P.3d 1043 (2011).

To determine jurisdiction, we must first examine the relevant jurisdictional statutes because, in Kansas, "[a]ppellate jurisdiction is defined by statute; the right to appeal is neither a vested nor a constitutional right." Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty , 291 Kan. 597, 609, 244 P.3d 642 (2010). Thus, a jurisdiction question involves statutory interpretation and presents a question of law. Smith , 309 Kan. at 982, 441 P.3d 1041.

Statutory interpretation begins with the words of the statute because the words chosen by the Legislature are the best expression of legislative intent. If those words are unambiguous, we do not add or ignore words. And we do not look to extraneous sources to discern intent. Instead, we look to legislative history, background considerations that speak to legislative purpose, or canons of statutory construction only if the statute is ambiguous. State v. Gross , 308 Kan. 1, 10, 417 P.3d 1049 (2018).

Turning to the statutory basis for appellate...