LAW.coLAW.co

State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Larry L. Williams, Appellant

Kansas Court of Appeals1994-08-05No. No. 70,421
19 Kan. App. 2d 903878 P.2d 854

Summary

Holding. The trial court had no authority to determine Williams's criminal history because it suspended imposition of sentence rather than actually sentencing him, and the statutory framework applies only upon actual sentencing. The trial court's criminal history determination is reversed and declared not binding in any subsequent proceeding.

Larry Williams appealed a trial court's determination of his prior criminal history under Kansas's sentencing guidelines. The trial court had suspended imposition of sentence on two forgery counts and a cocaine possession charge, but nonetheless calculated that Williams had four prior nonperson felonies, placing him in criminal history category E with a severity level of 4. The trial court did not actually impose a sentence; it only suspended imposition.

The appellate court examined the statutory language governing sentences imposed after July 1, 1993, for crimes committed before that date. The court concluded that the statute's requirement to calculate criminal history and determine a guidelines sentence applies only when a court actually imposes a sentence. Because the trial court suspended imposition of sentence rather than imposing one, the court lacked authority to calculate Williams's criminal history or determine his guidelines sentence at that time.

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

Key issues

  • Whether a trial court may calculate criminal history and sentencing guidelines when it suspends imposition of sentence rather than imposing sentence
  • Interpretation of the statute governing sentences imposed after July 1, 1993, for pre-July 1, 1993 offenses
  • Whether multiple counts based on the same conduct constitute separate prior crimes for sentencing purposes

Procedural posture

Williams appealed the trial court's determination of his prior criminal history made at a hearing where the court suspended imposition of sentence rather than imposing sentence.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Elliott, J.:

Larry L. Williams appeals the trial court’s determination of his prior criminal history; the trial court suspended imposition of sentence in two cases but determined Williams had four prior nonperson felonies for purposes of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) (K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4701 et seq.).

In 1991, Williams pled guilty to two counts of forgery; the trial court suspended imposition of sentence for two years on certain conditions. Subsequently, Williams pled guilty to possession of cocaine, and the trial court suspended imposition of sentence on the cocaine charge and continued him on a suspended imposition of sentence on the forgeries.

At sentencing, the trial court stated it was requii-ed to determine where Williams fell within the KSGA grid. Because sentencing occurred after July 1, 1993, for an offense prior to that date, the trial court felt it was required to make the finding.

The trial court treated one prior offense from 1965 as an adult offense and counted the separate counts as separate prior crimes. The trial court also counted the two counts of forgery as separate crimes,-although both were based on the same bad check. As a result, the trial court found Williams had four prior nonperson felonies, which gave him a criminal history category of “E.” The trial court found defendant’s severity level was a level 4 drug offense. For some reason, these findings were never journalized.

K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724(f) provides:

“In the case of any person to whom the provisions of this section shall apply, who committed a crime prior to July 1, 1993, but was sentenced after July 1, 1993, the sentencing court shall impose a sentence as provided pursuant to law as the law existed prior to July 1, 1993, and shall compute the appropriate sentence had the person been sentenced pursuant to the Kansas sentencing guidelines.”

Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and our review is therefore de novo. See State v. Donlay, 253 Kan. 132, 133-34, 853 P.2d 680 (1993); Memorial Hospital Ass’n, Inc. v. Knutson, 239 Kan. 663, 668, 722 P.2d 1093 (1986).

We must give effect to the plain meaning of the statute as written, rather than attempt to determine what the law “should or should not be.” See Martindale v. Tenny, 250 Kan. 621, Syl. ¶ 2, 829 P.2d 561 (1992).

We hold the trial court had no authority to determine Williams’ criminal history because he was not actually sentenced at the hearing. On its face, K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724(f) applies only to a person sentenced after July 1, 1993, for a crime committed prior to that date. In the present case, the trial court never actually sentenced Williams, because it suspended imposition of sentence. As a result, the trial court had no authority to calculate the criminal history and KSGA sentence; nor will the trial court have that authority until it actually imposes sentence on Williams. Because of this, the trial court’s determination is without effect and cannot be considered in any subsequent action against Williams .

Reversed. The trial court’s determination, of Williams’ criminal history is not binding in any subsequent proceeding.