Opinion
111,726.
12-19-2014
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Lucas S. FENWICK, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Lucas S. Fenwick appeals the district court's decision to resentence him to a term of post release supervision. We granted Fenwick's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2014 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 66). The State has filed no response.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Fenwick pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance. The district court granted a durational departure and sentenced Fenwick to 30 months' imprisonment. Although the journal entry of judgment included 36 months' postrelease supervision, the district court neglected to pronounce the postrelease supervision term at sentencing.
Fenwick filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence, arguing that he should not be required to serve a term of postrelease supervision because the district court had failed to pronounce it at sentencing. After a hearing on the motion, the district court resentenced Fenwick to 30 months' imprisonment, but then pronounced the correct term of 36 months' postrelease supervision. Fenwick appealed from his resentencing.
Fenwick now argues that the district court erred when it resentenced him to postrelease supervision when a postrelease supervision term was not assigned at his original sentencing. But as Fenwick acknowledges, K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6805(c)(2)(C) provides that in sentencing a defendant for drug crimes, “the sentencing court shall pronounce the complete sentence which shall include the ... period of postrelease supervision at the sentencing hearing. Failure to pronounce the period of postrelease supervision shall not negate the existence of such period of postrelease supervision.” Furthermore, in State v. Arrocha, 42 Kan.App.2d 796, Syl. ¶ 4, 217 P.3d 467 (2009), this court stated: “In a case where the sentencing court failed to pronounce the term of postrelease supervision but included the term in the sentencing journal entry, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing for the failure to pronounce the complete sentence as the law requires.”
Thus, the district court's original sentence where the judge failed to pronounce the postrelease supervision term was an illegal sentence. The district court was obligated to correct the illegal sentence and could do so at any time. See K.S.A. 22–3504(1). Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err when it resentenced Fenwick to a term of postrelease supervision.
Affirmed.