From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Rood

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Jun 29, 2012
279 P.3d 132 (Kan. 2012)

Opinion

No. 105,513.

2012-06-29

STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jason L. ROOD, Appellant.

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Timothy H. Henderson, Judge. Opinion filed June 29, 2012. Affirmed. Rachel L. Pickering, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant. David Lowden, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.


Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Timothy H. Henderson, Judge. Opinion filed June 29, 2012. Affirmed.
Rachel L. Pickering, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant. David Lowden, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION


The opinion of the court was delivered by PER CURIAM:

Defendant Jason L. Rood appeals his concurrent sentences for two Jessica's Law crimes.

Rood pleaded guilty to five counts: Counts 1 and 2 for off-grid aggravated indecent liberties subject to Jessica's Law, K.S.A. 21–4643; Count 3 for severity level 3 aggravated indecent liberties; and Counts 4 and 5 for severity level 3 criminal sodomy.

Rood has advanced two arguments: (1) The district judge erred by sentencing him to lifetime postrelease supervision rather than lifetime parole; and (2) the district judge erred by imposing lifetime electronic monitoring.

During Rood's sentencing hearing, the district judge stated in pertinent part:

“The Court will find that the controlling sentence is from Counts 1 and 2, calling for a prison term of life, and a post-release supervision for life.... [I]t is the judgment and order of this Court that you be sentenced as follows: In Count 1, life; in Count 2, life, in Count 3, 59 months; in Count 4, 59 months; in Count 5, 59 months; these Counts will run concurrent with each other. Total term of incarceration is life with eligibility for parole after 25 years.” (Emphasis added.)
The district judge made no mention of electronic monitoring at the sentencing hearing.

For Count 1, the district judge's journal entry of judgment reflected imposition of a “[mjandatory minimum of Hard 25 years; lifetime parole; lifetime electronic monitoring ” (Emphasis added.) For Count 2, the journal entry reflected imposition of a concurrent “[mjandatory minimum of Hard 25 years; lifetime parole; lifetime electronic monitoring ” (Emphasis added.) The journal entry shows the three sentences for Counts 3, 4, and 5 running concurrent to the sentences on Counts 1 and 2. In the journal entry's “Recap of Sentence” section, the sentence is recorded as “Life (Hard 25)” with “Life Parole ” as the supervision term that follows Rood's imprisonment. (Emphasis added.)

Rood's first argument—that the district judge erred by sentencing him to lifetime postrelease supervision rather than lifetime parole—fails on the merits because it is unsupported by the factual record before us. Although the district judge mentioned postrelease supervision rather than parole one time at Rood's sentencing hearing, all subsequent references in the sentencing transcript and in the journal entry of judgment correctly state that Rood will be eligible for parole rather than postrelease supervision after he completes service of the mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison. See K.S.A.2008 Supp. 22–3717(b)(5); see also State v. Cash, 293 Kan. 326, 330–31, 263 P.3d 786 (2011) (citing State v. Ballard, 289 Kan. 1000, 1014, 218 P.3d 432 [2009] ).

Rood's second argument—that the district judge erred by imposing lifetime electronic monitoring—has been overtaken by subsequent events. Since the parties submitted their briefs on this appeal, a corrected journal entry has been filed in the district court. The new journal entry does not address lifetime electronic monitoring, thus matching the district judge's appropriate silence on the subject during his oral pronouncement of Rood's sentence. See State v. Jolly, 291 Kan. 842, 848, 249 P.3d 421 (2011) (citing K .S.A. 22–3717[u] ). No further relief is necessary.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Rood

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Jun 29, 2012
279 P.3d 132 (Kan. 2012)
Case details for

State v. Rood

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jason L. ROOD, Appellant.

Court:Supreme Court of Kansas.

Date published: Jun 29, 2012

Citations

279 P.3d 132 (Kan. 2012)