Appeal from Finney District Court; MICHAEL L. QUINT, judge.
BY THE COURT
On the facts of this case, in which the district court announced at sentencing that would consider the imposition of restitution at a specific later date, which was agreed to by the defendant, and restitution was imposed at that hearing with the defendant present, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter a restitution order.
In a case in which the defendant stole goods from a retail merchant, the district court does not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution in the amount of the goods' retail value where that was the only value evidence presented and no other evidence convincingly showed that an award of the retail value would have been inappropriate.
Shawn E. Minihan, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Megan Massey, assistant county attorney, John P. Wheeler, Jr., county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before GREEN, P.J., LEBEN and ARNOLD-BURGER, JJ.
This case is before our court for a second time. In a published opinion in 2013, State v. Davis, 48 Kan.App.2d 573, 294 P.3d 353 (2013), we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution in the amount of the retail value of goods Davis had stolen from a department store. Davis sought review by the Kansas Supreme Court of both whether the amount of restitution was appropriate and whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter a restitution award.
In May 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court granted Davis' petition for review, summarily reversed our decision, and remanded to us " for consideration in light of" three recent Kansas Supreme Court opinions: State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978, 319 P.3d 506 (2014); State v. Charles, [50 Kan.App.2d 726] 298 Kan. 993, 318 P.3d 997 (2014); and State v. Frierson, 298 Kan. 1005, 319 P.3d 515 (2014). The order remanding the case to us did not mention the two separate matters on ...