Opinion
No. 106,213.
2012-05-18
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Brian VAINERERE, Appellant.
Appeal from Finney District Court; Michael L. Quint, Judge. Lydia Krebs, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant. Brian R. Sherwood, deputy county attorney, John P. Wheeler, Jr., county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Appeal from Finney District Court; Michael L. Quint, Judge.
Lydia Krebs, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant. Brian R. Sherwood, deputy county attorney, John P. Wheeler, Jr., county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before MALONE, P.J., PIERRON and BRUNS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Brian Vainerere appeals the district court's decision to impose a $1,500 fine without considering the method of payment, in violation of State v. Copes, 290 Kan. 209, 224 P.3d 571 (2010). While the court did consider his ability to pay, it failed to make any mention of the method of payment—whether Vainerere pay a monetary fine or provide community service. Accordingly, this case must be remanded for resentencing consistent with Copes.
In January 2011, Vainerere was charged with one count of obstruction of official duty, one count of driving under the influence, one count of driving without a valid driver's license, one count of failure to maintain a single lane, and one count of inappropriately emerging from a private alley. Vainerere entered a no contest plea to one count of DUI and one count of driving without a license.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court imposed an underlying sentence of 165 days for the DUI, with an additional 60 days for the license violation. The court ordered that Vainerere be released to Community Corrections after 90 days. The court then considered the statutorily mandated fine and inquired as to Vainerere's financial status. Defense counsel explained that Vainerere was “pretty impoverished.” The court then imposed a $1,500 fine to he paid during the probation period. Vainerere appeals that decision to this court.
On appeal, Vainerere's sole argument is that the district court erred by failing to consider the method of payment for his fine, in contravention of Copes. Vainerere is correct.
Resolution of this issue requires that we interpret the meaning of a statute. Accordingly, our standard of review is plenary. State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780(2010).
K.S.A.2010 Supp. 8–1567(f)(l) establishes a mandatory fine of not less than $1,500 and not more than $2,500. When imposing the fine, the district court is required to state on the record that it has considered the “ ‘financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of the fine will impose.’ “ This procedure applies not only to consideration of the amount of the fine, but also to the method of payment. Copes, 290 Kan. at 222–23.
It is undisputed that the district court considered Vainerere's financial resources when establishing the amount of the fine. However, the court never mentioned the method of payment. This failure violates the Kansas Supreme Court's holding in Copes. Therefore, this matter must be remanded to the district court for resentencing consistent with Copes.
Reversed and remanded with directions.