of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished
opinion filed December 11, 2015.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
Interpretation of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA)
is a question of law subject to unlimited review.
ascertain the legislative intent underlying particular
statutory provisions, appellate courts give effect, if
possible, to the entire act. It is the court's duty, so
far as practicable, to reconcile different provisions so as
to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible.
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6603(g) defines probation in relevant
part as "a procedure under which a defendant, convicted
of a crime, is released by the court after imposition of
sentence, without imprisonment except as provided in felony
cases, subject to conditions imposed by the court and subject
to the supervision of the probation service of the court or
a sentence of confinement has been completed, a defendant
cannot be sentenced to "probation" as defined by
exception to the general rule that an appellate court will
not review a moot issue is where the question is capable of
repetition and is of public importance.
from Wyandotte District Court; J. Dexter Burdette, judge.
Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the
cause and was on the brief for appellant.
G. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, argued the cause,
and Jacob G. Fishman, assistant district attorney, Jerome A.
Gorman, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney
general, were on the brief for appellee.
district court sentenced James Kinder to nine months'
imprisonment. While it awarded Kinder credit for his nearly
12 months of pretrial confinement under K.S.A. 2016 Supp.
21-6615, it also imposed 18 months' probation. Because
Kinder's credited jail time actually exceeded the
sentence of confinement imposed for his crime, he argued he
already served his sentence and the probation therefore was
Court of Appeals did not address whether sentencing Kinder to
probation was in error and in violation of his Double
Jeopardy rights, holding his sentence was a presumptive one
under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) and thus
beyond judicial review. State v. Kinder, No. 112,
844, 2015 WL 8590406 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion)
(citing K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6820[c]).
conclude Kinder is not actually challenging a presumptive
sentence so review is appropriate. We further conclude
probation cannot be imposed after the full sentence of
confinement has been served. Accordingly, we reverse the
and Procedural Background
facts material to our analysis are straightforward. In
Kinder's petition for our review of the Court of
Appeals' decision under K.S.A. 20-3018(b), he ...