Opinion
Nos. 110870 110871.
2015-03-6
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Bryan L. MORSE, Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Eric A. Commer, Judge.Carl F.A. Maughan, of Maughan Law Group LC, of Wichita, for appellant.Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Eric A. Commer, Judge.
Carl F.A. Maughan, of Maughan Law Group LC, of Wichita, for appellant. Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before ARNOLD–BURGER, P.J., PIERRON and BUSER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Bryan L. Morse appeals the district court's refusal to modify his underlying sentence after revoking his probation. Morse asked the district court to modify his 13–month underlying sentence to 6 months. Because Morse is appealing a presumptive sentence, we lack jurisdiction to review his sentence. Therefore, we dismiss.
The State charged Morse with one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of unlawfully operating a bicycle in case No. 10–CR–3401. Morse pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and the State dismissed the unlawful operation of a bicycle. Based on the severity level of the crime and Morse's criminal history, the sentence was presumptive probation. The presumptive sentence range on the case was 10 to 14 months imprisonment. On October 6, 2011, the district court sentenced Morse to 18 months' probation with a 13—month the presumptive mid-range—underlying prison sentence.
On May 14, 2012, while Morse was on probation for case No. 10–CR–3401, the State charged him with aggravated battery in case No. 12–CR–1221. On August 30, 2012, Morse entered a plea agreement with the State in 12–CR–1221 in which Morse agreed to plead guilty to one count of aggravated battery and the parties agreed to recommend that his probation in 10–CR–3401 be revoked and his sentence modified to 6 months. Morse pled guilty in 12–CR–1221 in accordance with the plea agreement. However, the district court did not follow the suggested sentence in the plea agreement.
On October 17, 2012, the district court held a joint probation revocation hearing in case No. 10–CR–3401 and sentencing in case No. 12–CR–1221. Morse stipulated to the probation violations. Clayton Bayer, Morse's intensive supervision officer, spoke at the revocation-sentencing hearing. He testified Morse had tested positive for methamphetamine on March 1, 2012. On March 5, 2012, Bayer caught Morse with “an improvised devise taped to his body to provide me with a fake—or someone else's urine.”
The district court noted the significance of the offenses Morse had committed and the fact they were different types of offenses. The court noted it did not see anything that struck it as beneficial from Morse indicating that he deserved a reduction of sentence. The court asked the parties to address that concern. The prosecutor appearing for the hearing noted she was not the prosecutor assigned to the case—that prosecutor was in a homicide trial that day—but she trusted he had good reason for agreeing to the plea. Defense counsel spoke at length about trying to reach an agreement that would signify to Morse the serious nature of the crimes, place him back in the community with supervision and drug programs available to him, and hopefully he could be a productive member of society. Based on the amount of time Morse had served since his arrest in 12–CR–1221, the court noted he would have already completed the 6–month sentence in 10–CR–3401 if the court modified that sentence as recommended by the parties.
After hearing from both parties, the district court sentenced Morse. The court declined to modify Morse's sentence in case No. 10–CR–3401. The judge stated, “Quite frankly, counsel, I do not see any reason to reduce the sentence in the case.” Instead, the court ordered Morse to serve his original underlying presumptive sentence of 13 months' in prison.
Morse appeals the district court's denial of his motion to modify his sentence.
An appellate court is prohibited from reviewing a sentence for a felony conviction that is within the presumptive guidelines sentence for the crime. K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6820(c); see State v. Sprung, 294 Kan. 300, 317, 277 P.3d 1100 (2012) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review challenges to presumptive sentences). Here, Morse's sentence fell within the presumptive guidelines. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to consider Morse' appeal.
Appeal dismissed.