In a recent Kansas Supreme Court case, Carl Folsom of Bell Folsom, P.A. argued on behalf of Mr. William McKnight and successfully persuaded the court to reverse an unfair sentence. In State v. McKnight, Mr. William McKnight was convicted of possession with intent to distribute. No. 100,246, slip op. at 2 (Kan. 2011). He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and 24 months post-release supervision. Initially, the court suspended his sentence and placed Mr. McKnight on an 18 month probation period. When Mr. McKnight later violated the terms of his probation, the court revoked his probation and imposed a modified sentence of 22 months incarceration and no post-release supervision period.
Two months later, the State moved to change the sentence and add a 24 month post-release supervision. The State argued that the modified 22 month sentence was illegal. The district court agreed and found that the court had previously not made “a conscious decision to modify Mr. McKnight’s sentence by not requiring a post-release. It was more that I did not believe I could order post-release because it was a technical violation of probation.” Id. at 2.
On appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court, Carl Folsom argued for Mr. McKnight. The defense argued that the trial court had authority at the probation revocation hearing to impose any “lesser sentence.” Id. at 5. So long as the trial court’s decision not to include post-release supervision amounted to a lawful lesser sentence, the court may not later return and modify that sentence. ”A sentence is effective upon pronouncement from the bench, regardless of the court’s intent at the time the sentence is pronounced.” Id. at 5 (citing Abasolo v. State, 284 Kan. 299, 310, 160 P.3d 471 (2007)).
The State argued that the original sentence was illegal. Under Kansas law, a court has jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence at any time. K.S.A. 22-3504(1).
Here, the Supreme Court began its analysis with the plain language of the statute which governs probation revocation hearings. When the prosecution establishes the defendant has violated his probation, “the court may continue or revoke the probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction and may require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence, and, if imposition of sentence was suspended, may impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed.” (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 22-3716(b). The court finds that the statute allows the trial court to impose any sentence that is less than the original sentence imposed. There is no requirement that a period of post-release supervision be imposed when probation is revoked. Id. at 9.
As a result, the court agrees with the reasoning of Mr. Folsom and finds the trial court imposed a legal lesser sentence of 22 months with no post-release supervision. The court reversed the district court’s ruling and removed the requirement that Mr. McKnight complete a 24 month post-release supervision period.
If your rights have been violated and you need help in front of the Kansas Supreme Court or Kansas Court of Appeals, it is important that you contact an experienced appellate attorney. Contact a knowledgeable attorney at Bell Folsom, P.A., today so we can start fighting for you.