Opinion
111,290.
12-19-2014
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Justin WHITE, Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Justin White appeals from the district court's revocation of his probation. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 63), we granted White's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefing. White contends that the district court erred by imposing a term of postrelease supervision because, by statute, a district court is not permitted to order such supervision in cases where the sentence of imprisonment arises from a probation revocation.
In February 2012, White entered pleas to three charges in two different cases. In case No. 10 CR 248, White pled no contest to attempted electronic solicitation and guilty to misdemeanor driving under the influence; in case No. 11 CR 106, White pled no contest to felony theft. The district court sentenced White to 36 months' probation with an underlying prison term of 55 months for the offenses in case No. 10 CR 248 and 12 months' probation with an underlying prison term of 16 months for the offenses in case No. 11 CR 106.
In May 2013, the State moved to revoke White's probation. White admitted to the all the alleged probation violations in both case Nos. 10 CR 248 and 11 CR 106 at the December 19, 2013, probation revocation hearing. Pursuant to an agreement between White and the State, the district court revoked White's probation and ordered him to serve his underlying sentences concurrently for a total of 55 months' imprisonment. Despite White's arguments to the contrary, the district also ordered at least 12 months' postrelease supervision, although the full extent of postrelease supervision is uncertain due to White's failure to provide documentation from the controlling sentence in case No. 10 CR 248. Regardless, White timely appealed from his probation revocation, raising only the issue of postrelease supervision.
K.S.A.2010 Supp. 22–3716(e) provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, an offender whose nonprison sanction is revoked and a term of imprisonment imposed ... shall not serve a period of postrelease supervision upon the completion of the prison portion of that sentence.” However, this prohibition against postrelease supervision “shall not apply to offenders sentenced to a nonprison sanction pursuant to a dispositional departure.” K.S.A.2010 Supp. 22–3716(e). White received a downward dispositional departure to probation from a presumptive prison sentence. As such, the prohibition against postrelease supervision is not applicable in the instant case, and White is required to serve postrelease supervision at the completion of his prison sentence.
Because the limitation on postrelease supervision in K.S.A.2010 Supp. 22–3716(e) does not apply to White, the district court did not err in ordering such postrelease supervision following the revocation of his probation.
Affirmed.