Opinion
No. 111,943.
2014-12-19
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jill HARNEY, Appellant.
Appeal from Reno District Court; Timothy J. Chambers, Judge.
Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6820(g) and (h).
Before MALONE, C.J., GREEN and SCHROEDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Jill Harney appeals the district court's decision to impose a postrelease supervision term upon revocation of her probation. We granted Harney'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.
On August 26, 2011, Harney pled no contest to one count of burglary of an automobile, a severity level 9 person felony. The district court sentenced Harney to an underlying prison term of 12 months with 12 months' postrelease supervision. Although Harney's conviction called for presumptive imprisonment, the district court granted 12 months' probation.
The district court revoked and reinstated Harney's probation on February 17, 2012, and May 3, 2012. On January 18, 2013, the district court revoked Harney's probation and ordered her to serve her underlying prison sentence, including postrelease supervision.
On January 3, 2014, Harney filed a motion to correct her sentence, arguing that she should not be placed on postrelease supervision after she completes her prison sentence. After conducting a hearing, the district court denied the motion and ordered Harney to serve 12 months' postrelease supervision.
On appeal, Harney contends the district court erred when it denied her motion to correct her sentence. She argues that the imposition of postrelease supervision constitutes an illegal sentence because her underlying sentence was presumptive probation and her probation was revoked for reasons other than committing a new offense.
Resolution of Harney's claim requires statutory interpretation. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review. State v. Eddy, 299 Kan. 29, 32, 321 P.3d 12 (2014).
Harney's claim fails because her original sentence was not presumptive probation. As Harney acknowledges, her burglary conviction was subject to a special rule calling for presumed imprisonment based on the fact that she had two or more prior convictions for theft or burglary. See K.S.A.2010 Supp. 21–4704(p) (stating the sentence for the special rule is presumed imprisonment). Under K.S.A.2010 Supp. 22–3716(e), the provision eliminating postrelease supervision upon a probation revocation does not apply where “the sentence is presumptive imprisonment but a nonprison sanction may be imposed without a departure.” Thus, the district court did not err in ordering Harney to serve a 12–month postrelease supervision term.
Affirmed.