Opinion
No. 111,435.
2014-11-21
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kasey R. GUY, Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; James R. Fleetwood, Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before MALONE, C.J., HILL and BRUNS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Kasey R. Guy appeals her sentence following her conviction of two counts of forgery. We granted Guy's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 63). The State filed a response and requested that the district court's judgment be affirmed.
On December 17, 2013, Guy pled guilty to two counts of forgery. On January 29, 2014, the district court sentenced her to a controlling term of 9 months' imprisonment but granted probation for 18 months. As a condition of probation, the district court ordered Guy to serve 30 days in jail based upon her conviction of two counts of forgery. Guy timely appealed her sentence.
On appeal, Guy argues that the district court erred by imposing 30 days of jail time as a condition of probation based upon multiple convictions of forgery within the same charging document. But as Guy acknowledges, K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–5823(b)(3) requires that on a second conviction of forgery a person shall be required to serve at least 30 days' imprisonment as a condition of probation. In State v. Gilley, 290 Kan. 31, 39, 223 P.3d 744 (2010), our Supreme Court held that any forgery conviction is counted to enhance the defendant's penalties under the progressive sentencing rules for multiple convictions of forgery, even multiple convictions within the same charging document. Thus, because Guy was convicted of two counts of forgery, she was required to serve 30 days in jail as a condition of her probation pursuant to K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–5823(b)(3).
Absent any indication that our Supreme Court is departing from its position in Gilley, this court is duty bound to follow that precedent. See State v. Ottinger, 46 Kan.App.2d 647, 655, 264 P.3d 1027 (2011), rev. denied 294 Kan. 946 (2012). As Guy acknowledges, she received a presumptive sentence for her forgery convictions. Under K.S.A.2013 Supp, 21–6820(c)(1), the appellate court shall not review any sentence that is within the presumptive sentence for the crime. See State v. Huerta, 291 Kan. 831, 837, 247 P.3d 1043 (2011) (reaffirming rule that presumptive sentences shall not be reviewed on appeal). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review Guy's presumptive sentence.
Appeal dismissed.