defendant is convicted, K.S.A. 22-3801 and K.S.A. 2017 Supp.
28-172a permit a district court to tax the defendant for
expenses that were reasonably related to the prosecution.
of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished
opinion filed April 14, 2017.
from Saline District Court; Jared B. Johnson, judge.
D. Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the
cause and was on the brief for appellant.
H. Mitchell, county attorney, argued the cause, and Derek
Schmidt, attorney general, was with her on the brief for
Alvarez petitions for review of the Court of Appeals decision
affirming the district court's order taxing him for
certain expenses as "court costs." We affirm the
portion of the decision holding that the district court did
not err in imposing these expenses as court costs, but we
reverse the portion holding that the relevant statutes
required that the district court impose these costs.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
State charged Alvarez with first-degree murder under K.S.A.
2016 Supp. 21-5402(a)(1). On January 22, 2016, three days
before his trial was scheduled to begin, Alvarez pleaded no
contest to one count of second-degree murder. Alvarez stated
at the plea hearing that he had read the charge against him,
which provided that the possible sentence ranged from 147 to
653 months' imprisonment.
March 2016, the State requested the district court order
Alvarez to reimburse the State for expenses related to
witnesses and the development of photographs that it had
intended to use as trial exhibits. Itemized receipts showed
$451.19 in witness expenses and $421.88 for trial exhibits.
district court held a sentencing hearing on April 8, 2016.
The presentence investigation report determined that
Alvarez' criminal history score was D. Alvarez did not
object to this score. Both parties requested the
standard-range sentence of 253 months' imprisonment, and
the district court followed that recommendation. The district
court then ordered Alvarez to pay all of the fees and
expenses requested by the State. Alvarez did not object to
paying the witness fees. But, with respect to the trial
exhibit expenses, defense counsel stated the following:
"I would just ask the Court to consider whether or not
the Court should be imposing basically office supply expenses
for the State such as photo finishing. I understand witness
mileage and witness expenses and we would not object to those
as being obviously incurred, but we would ask the court
to-just to seriously consider whether or not to consider
basically office supplies such as photo finishing in this
matter. That seems like that's just a cost of doing
business just like I don't charge for copies or notebooks
or pens that I may use in trial."
district court replied "[t]he Court finds that the
statute provides that reimbursement for trial preparation
fees such as those provided are appropriate and would find
all those reasonable ...