Opinion
112,189 112,190 112,191.
04-17-2015
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jonathan Robert TURNER, Appellant.
Andrew E. Werring, of Werring Law Office, LLC, of Atchison, for appellant. Gerald R. Kuckelman, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Andrew E. Werring, of Werring Law Office, LLC, of Atchison, for appellant.
Gerald R. Kuckelman, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before MALONE, C.J., PIERRON and ATCHESON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Jonathan Robert Turner appeals the sentences imposed by the district court in his multiple cases. Turner argues the court abused its discretion by failing to state on the record the factors it applied when imposing the sentence as set forth in K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6601 and K.S.A. 21–4606. However, K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6601 does not require the district court to state on the record its reasons for selecting a sentence within the presumptive range. Additionally, K.S.A. 21–4606 was repealed by L.2010, eh. 136, sec. 307, effective as of July 1, 2011. While it was in effect, it only applied to crimes committed prior to July 1, 1993. See K.S.A. 21–4606. Regardless, because Turner is appealing a presumptive sentence, we lack jurisdiction to review his sentence appeal. Therefore, we dismiss.
The State charged Turner with four counts of forgery and one count of theft in case No. 12–CR–80. On March 30, 2012, Turner pled guilty to two counts of forgery and one count of theft. The theft charge was a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The two forgery charges were felonies. Based on the severity level of the crime and Turner's criminal history, the sentence was presumptive probation. The presumptive sentence range for each count of forgery was 7 to 9 months' imprisonment. On May 11, 2012, the district court sentenced Turner to 18 months' probation with a 16–month—the presumptive mid-range—underlying sentence.
While on probation for case No. 12–CR–80, Turner was charged in two felony cases, Nos. 14–CR–22 and 14–CR–79, and a misdemeanor case, No.l3–CR–362. On April 23, 2014, Turner pled guilty to burglary of a nondwelling in case No. 14–CR–22 and to one count of burglary of a nondwelling and one count of theft in case No. 14–CR–79. District court documents for case No. 13–CR–362 are not included in the record.
On June 6, 2014, the district court held a joint probation revocation hearing in case No. 12–CR–80 and sentencing in case Nos. 14–CR–22, 14–CR–79, and 13–CR–362. Although 14–CR–22 and 14–CR–79 would both have been normally presumptive probation cases, the court invoked the special rule in K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6604(f)(1) which allowed it to sentence Turner to prison in a presumptive probation case because he had committed a felony while on felony probation. In case No. 14–CR–22, the court sentenced Turner to 21 months. In case No. 14–CR–79, the court sentenced Turner to 21 months for the burglary charge. The court ordered this sentence to run consecutive to 14–CR–22. The court sentenced Turner to 6 months' in prison for the theft charge but ordered that sentence to run concurrent to the others. In 13–CR–362, the court sentenced Turner to 6 months' in the county jail. The court ordered this sentence to run concurrent to the felony sentences.
In case No. 12–CR–80, the district court revoked Turner's probation and ordered him to serve his original underlying presumptive sentence of 16 months' in prison. The court ordered this sentence to run consecutive to the other felony sentences as required by K.S.A.2013 Supp. 21–6606(d).
Turner appeals, claiming the district court abused its discretion when it sentenced him.
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)(1) ; see State v. Sprung, 294 Kan. 300, 317, 277 P.3d 1100 (2012) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review challenges to presumptive sentences). Here, Turner's underlying sentence fell within the presumptive guidelines. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to consider Turner's appeal.
Appeal dismissed.