Preview:

No. 104,222 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SANDRA PERRY-COUTCHER, Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The mandatory drug treatment program outlined in K.S.A. 21-4729 applies only to offenders convicted of crimes under K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4160 and K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4162.

2. An attempt to possess opiates in violation of K.S.A. 21-3301 is a separate crime from possession of opiates in violation of K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4160.

3. Because K.S.A. 21-3301 is not listed in K.S.A. 21-4729 as a crime for which the court is required to order drug treatment, the court is not required to order drug treatment for a violation of K.S.A. 21-3301.

4. Before a court can exercise its discretion to order an offender into a community corrections program, it must find that the offender meets the criteria listed in K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 75-5291. 1

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; JAN W. LEUENBERGER, judge. Opinion filed May 6, 2011. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Shawn E. Minihan, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Natalie Chalmers, assistant district attorney, Chadwick J. Taylor, district attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, for appellee.

Before MARQUARDT, P.J., STANDRIDGE and ARNOLD-BURGER, JJ.

ARNOLD-BURGER, J.: Sandra Perry-Coutcher challenges the district court's order mandating that she attend a community corrections drug treatment program. Because the court had no statutory authority to sentence her to a community corrections program, we reverse and remand the case for resentencing.

Perry-Coutcher was convicted of attempted possession of opiates in violation of K.S.A. 21-3301 and sentenced to 18 months of probation with an underlying prison term of 9 months. The district court also ordered her to complete mandatory drug treatment for up to 18 months pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4729, commonly referred to as S.B. 123 mandatory drug treatment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court was authorized to order Perry-Coutcher to mandatory drug treatment pursuant to K.S.A. 214729 after a conviction for attempted possession of opiates. The answer rests with our interpretation of K.S.A. 21-4729.

Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010). When a statute is plain and unambiguous, an appellate court does not speculate as to the legislative intent behind it and will not read into the statute something not readily found in it. State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793, 796, 217 P.3d 15 (2009). 2

There is no ambiguity in the language of K.S.A. 21-4729. It requires that the district court order drug treatment for all offenders subject to its terms. By its clear language, its application is limited to offenders convicted of crimes under K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4160 and K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4162. While Perry-Coutcher was charged with a crime under K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4160 (possession of opiates), she was convicted of a violation of a crime under K.S.A. 21-3301 (attempted possession of opiates). A conviction for an attempt to commit a crime under K.S.A. 21-3301 is not covered in K.S.A. 21-4729. Therefore, the district court erred when it ordered Perry-Coutcher to complete mandatory drug treatment under K.S.A. 21-4729. See State v. Horn, 288 Kan. 690, Syl.

Download State v. PerryCoutcher. Unpublished Opinions.pdf

Kansas Law