STATE v. GUILLORY (2021)

Court of Appeals of Kansas.2021-12-17No. No. 123,204

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the sentence, finding it legally imposed within statutory limits and reasonable under the circumstances, with no abuse of discretion or vindictiveness by the trial court.

Glenn Guillory appealed his sentencing on a misdemeanor battery conviction, challenging a six-month jail sentence and $200 fine that he had agreed to with the prosecution. By the time of sentencing in 2018, Guillory had already served more than six months in custody while awaiting trial, which meant he was immediately released and only remained obligated to pay the $200 fine and associated costs.

The court rejected the State's argument that the appeal was moot, finding insufficient evidence that Guillory had paid the fine. On the merits, the court found the sentence fell within statutory limits for his offense and that Guillory failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion by the trial court. The $200 fine was at the low end of the permissible range (up to $1,000 for a Class B misdemeanor), and the sentence reflected an agreement between both parties made with full awareness of Guillory's time-served credit.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the appeal became moot after defendant completed incarceration portion of sentence
Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing a jointly agreed-upon sentence
Sufficiency of the $200 fine within statutory sentencing range for Class B misdemeanor

Procedural posture

Guillory appealed his 2018 sentencing on a no-contest plea to misdemeanor battery, challenging the six-month jail term and $200 fine imposed by the trial court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this sentencing appeal, Glenn W. Guillory Jr. claims the court erred when it sentenced him to six months in jail and a $200 fine. We granted Guillorys motion for summary disposition of his appeal under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48).

The State charged Guillory in early 2017 and he was soon arrested in Texas. He waived his extradition rights and came to Kansas to settle the charges. In 2018, Guillory entered a no contest plea to one count of misdemeanor battery. The parties agreed to a six-month jail sentence, a $200 fine, costs, fees, and credit for time served. Because Guillory had already been in custody for more than six months, he was immediately released. The court found Guillory had “more than satisfied his sentence in this matter” in terms of time served.

We begin by rejecting the States argument that this appeal is moot. The State argues mootness because Guillory has served his sentence. Indeed, he has served the incarceration period. The law states that, in “an appeal solely challenging a sentence, the party asserting mootness may establish a prima facie showing of mootness by demonstrating that the defendant has fully completed the terms and conditions of his or her sentence.” State v. Roat, 311 Kan. 581, 593, 466 P.3d 439 (2020). But the State has provided no evidence to show Guillory paid the $200 fine he is appealing. The argument on mootness fails as we do not have enough evidence to determine if Guillory remains obligated to the State under his sentence.

This record discloses that the sentence the court imposed is legal. It is within the statutory limits applicable to his charges. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6602(a)(2); K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6611(b)(2). “ ‘A criminal sentence that is within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion or vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing court.’ ” State v. Brown, 309 Kan. 369, 375, 435 P.3d 546 (2019).

We see no abuse of discretion here. An abuse of discretion occurs if the judicial action is

• arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable;

• based on an error of law; or

• based on an error of fact.

State v. Ingham, 308 Kan. 1466, 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018).

In other words, “[j]udicial discretion is abused when no reasonable person would have taken the position taken by the trial court.” State v. Gumfory, 281 Kan. 1168, 1170, 135 P.3d 1191 (2006).

Guillory, as the party asserting that the district court abused its discretion, bears the burden of showing such an abuse of discretion occurred. State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 739, 415 P.3d 430 (2018).

Our review of the record reveals that the trial court imposed this sentence based on a no contest plea which both parties agreed to. At the time of sentencing, all parties were aware Guillory would be released after sentencing because he had already completed more than six months in custody. His credit for time served left Guillory responsible for a $200 fine, fees, and costs. For the purposes of this appeal, we are only addressing the six months in custody and the $200 fine.

The $200 fine is on the low end of the spectrum on which Guillory could have been sentenced. K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6611(b)(2) (allowing a fine of up to $1,000 for persons charged with a Class B misdemeanor). Guillory does not explain why he believes the court erred in imposing this fine. Additionally, the trial court was imposing a sentence already agreed to by both parties.

This sentence did not favor one side or the other and was reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, the trial courts actions were within the bounds of law, reasonable, and were not based on an error of fact. We find no abuse of discretion or vindictiveness.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: