• Home
  • Supreme Court releases for August 31, 2018

Supreme Court releases for August 31, 2018

31 Aug 2018 10:38 AM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions today:

Appeal No. 113,299: State of Kansas v. Ernest E. Sandoval

Archived oral argument video

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sedgwick County District Court's decision granting the State's motion to correct Sandoval's illegal sentence. Sandoval had pleaded guilty to a 2007 charge of aggravated indecent solicitation The State did not notice a problem with Sandoval's postrelease supervision term until Sandoval's probation was revoked and he was required to serve his underlying sentence. Sandoval's original sentence required only 24 months of postrelease supervision, rather than the statutorily mandated lifetime term. At the revocation hearing, the district judge declined to modify Sandoval's underlying sentence and instead required Sandoval to serve the original sentence. The court held: After revoking probation, a district judge may either sentence anew or simply require the defendant to serve the original sentence. Because the judge imposed Sandoval's original sentence, the illegality remained, and it was susceptible to later correction on the State's motion.

Appeal No. 113,753: State of Kansas v. Andrew Todd Roth

Archived oral argument video

The Supreme Court reversed the Finney County District Court's decision granting the State's motion to correct Roth's illegal sentence. Roth had been convicted of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of aggravated burglary. The State did not notice a problem with Roth's postrelease supervision term until Roth's probation was revoked and he was required to serve his underlying prison sentence. Roth's original sentence required only 24 months of postrelease supervision rather than the statutorily mandated lifetime term. At the revocation hearing, a district judge modified Roth's prison term to run the sentences concurrently instead of consecutively, while still requiring 24-months' postrelease supervision. The court held: By ordering the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively, the district judge sentenced Roth anew. When a judge sentences anew at a revocation hearing, the judge is permitted to impose "any lesser sentence," including a lesser term of postrelease supervision than otherwise mandated. Whatever may have been illegal about Roth's postrelease term when originally pronounced no longer existed after the new sentence was pronounced after revocation of his probation, and the postrelease term was therefore not subject to correction on the State's later motion to correct illegal sentence.


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software