BY THE COURT
Generally, Kansas appellate courts do not decide moot
questions or render advisory opinions. The mootness doctrine
is a court policy, which recognizes that the role of the
court is to determine real controversies relative to the
legal rights of persons and properties which are actually
involved in the particular case properly brought before it
and to adjudicate those rights in such manner that the
determination will be operative, final, and conclusive. We do
recognize an exception when the question is capable of
repetition and is of public interest even though the case has
become moot for the present parties.
the court makes a finding that the offender has committed one
or more violations of the release conditions of the
probation, the court may impose confinement in a county jail
not to exceed 60 days upon each such finding. K.S.A. 2018
Supp. 22-3716(c)(11). Such confinement is separate and
distinct from the violation sanctions provided in K.S.A. 2018
Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(B), (c)(1)(C), (c)(1)(D), and (c)(1)(E)
and shall not be imposed at the same time as any such
general, criminal statutes are strictly construed in favor of
the accused. That rule is constrained by the rule that
interpreting a statute must be reasonable and sensible to
effect the legislative design and intent of the law.
the Legislature shows that it knew how to create an exception
and fails to do so, our courts assume the Legislature did not
intend to include such an exception.
from Douglas District Court; Peggy C. Kittel, judge.
Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Duncan Butler, assistant district attorney, Charles E.
Branson, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney
general, for appellee.
Hill, P.J., Standridge, J., and Neil B. Foth, District Judge,
sanction for violating his probation, the court ordered
Christian Chardon to serve 60 days in jail. Because he could
not make bond, Chardon had spent 65 days in jail awaiting
disposition of the alleged probation violations. On appeal,
he contends the district court should have credited this time
toward the 60-day sanction. After reviewing the cases and
considering the rule of lenity and how the Legislature
created the 60-day sanction, we agree with Chardon. He should
have received credit.
had pled no contest to felony theft and felony fleeing or
eluding a police officer. The court sentenced him to a prison
term which it suspended to 12 months' probation. Later,
Chardon never reported as required and no longer lived at the
address he had given when placed on probation.
months later, police arrested Chardon in Arizona and brought
him back for a probation violation hearing. Chardon
stipulated to the probation violations, but the parties
disputed whether Chardon had "absconded" from
supervision, which would permit the district court to bypass
the statutory requirement to impose an intermediate sanction
and send him directly to prison.
court set the matter for a disposition hearing on March 9,
2018, and ordered Chardon to remain in custody until that
time. For a reason not apparent from the record, the
disposition hearing was not held until March 30, 2018. In