Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 98,160 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. WILLIAM WILLARD SHELDON, Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT On the undisputed testimony of the investigating detective in this case, the State could not prove the elements of felony obstruction of official duty under K.S.A. 21-3808 and the defendant's conviction must be reversed.
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed September 19, 2008. Appeal from Cowley District Court; JAMES T. PRINGLE, JR., judge. Opinion filed May 21, 2010. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court on the single subject to our grant of review is reversed. Judgment of the district court on this issue is reversed.

Jennifer Anne Passiglia, of Taylor, Krusor & Passiglia, L.L.P., of Winfield, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

James R. Spring, deputy county attorney, argued the cause, and Paul J. Morrison, former attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BEIER, J.: Defendant William Willard Sheldon was charged with three counts of making a false information and two counts of felony obstruction of an official duty arising out of firearm pawns. The district court judge dismissed one obstruction count,
1

and a jury convicted Sheldon on the remaining charges. He appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the three false information convictions but affirmed the obstruction conviction. This court granted Sheldon's petition for review on the obstruction conviction. We denied the State's cross-petition for review of the three false information convictions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 9, 2005, Wayman Young took a pistol, owned jointly with his wife, to Sheldon's Pawn Shop in Arkansas City, Kansas. Young asked Sheldon if he could pawn the gun despite a prior felony conviction on Young's record. By law, Sheldon was able to accept a gun from any person over 18 years of age but would only be able to return the gun to a person passing a law enforcement check. Sheldon therefore told Young that he could pawn the gun but that Young would not be able to retrieve it. Young then asked if he could pawn the gun in the name of his wife, Linda, so that she could retrieve it. Sheldon agreed to this arrangement.

Young then called his wife at work for permission to list her name and to get her Social Security number. She agreed to list the pawn in her name and provided the information Young requested. While filling out the pawn form, Young inadvertently listed an incorrect date of birth for Linda, accidentally checked the box for "black" despite Linda being "white," and then signed her name.

Linda retrieved the gun on May 31 while Young was present.

Young took the pistol back to Sheldon's Pawn Shop on June 9, 2005. Young followed the May 9 procedure, pawning the gun in Linda's name with her permission. When filling out the pawn report, Young again called Linda for her Social Security number. He incorrectly listed a different date of birth for Linda, checked the box for
2

"black" but then scratched it out and checked "white," and signed the form in his own name.

State statute and city ordinance require pawn store owners to provide certain information, including pawn tickets, to law enforcement. Officer Miles Cleveland of the Arkansas City Police Department regularly reviews pawn tickets and enters them into a database. On July 11, 2005, Cleveland encountered the June 9 pawn ticket filled out with Linda's information but signed by Young. He noticed the incorrect date of birth for Linda, the change from "black" to "white," and Young's signature rather than Linda's. Following his supervisor's order, Cleveland passed the ticket to Detective Eric Mata for investigation.

Mata found the pawn ticket taped to his door on July 11 and went to Sheldon's Pawn Shop to speak with Sheldon within a few days. At the point of this first conversation with Sheldon, Mata was investigating whether Young was in criminal possession of a firearm. Mata asked Sheldon who pawned the gun, and Sheldon said Linda had pawned the gun because Young could not be in possession of the gun. Mata asked Sheldon for the pawn contract, which is separate from the pawn ticket. The pawn contract had "Mrs. Wayman Young" written at the top. Mata asked why Young's name was on the pawn ticket and pawn contract when Linda had pawned the gun, and Sheldon replied, "Well, that is just the way we keep track of it."

On July 15, Mata spoke with Young and Linda about the matter. Linda admitted retrieving the gun on May 31 in connection with the May 9 pawn, and Young admitted he had pawned the gun using his wife's information on both May 9 and June 9. The conversation ended with Young and Linda agreeing to fill out witness statements at the police station.

3

Later that afternoon, Mata returned to the pawn shop and spoke again with Sheldon. Mata was still investigating whether Young was in unlawful possession of a firearm. Wanting to find out why Sheldon's initial account conflicted with Young's story, Mata asked Sheldon "one last time" who pawned the gun. Mata characterized Sheldon's response as "sketchy" because it now included Young being present, leaving to bring Linda to the shop, and then Linda waiting outside. Sheldon said that he was unsure whether Young or Linda filled out the forms. When pressed, Sheldon terminated the conversation.

As his investigation continued, Mata learned that Young could legally possess the gun because the time period prohibiting his possession of a firearm had expired. Accordingly, no charges were filed against Young.

The two felony obstruction counts filed against Sheldon, Counts IV and V, were based on his two conversations with Mata. The underlying felony for Count IV was criminal possession of a firearm; the underlying felony for Count V was making a false information. Before the district judge submitted the case to the jury, he dismissed Count IV. The jury convicted Sheldon on the remaining counts.

The Court of Appeals reversed all but the conviction on Count V, which is the conviction Sheldon challenges before this court. He argues that there was no legal basis for the charge under K.S.A. 21-3808. Resolution of this issue requires statutory interpretation; thus our review is unlimited. State v. Seabury, 267 Kan. 431, 435, 985 P.2d 1162 (1999).

In reviewing a statute, "the fundamental rule to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained." Steffes v. City of Lawrence, 284 Kan. 380, Syl.

Download State v. Sheldon.pdf

Kansas Law