 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Goeller10/31/2003
s responsibility to begin making payments was to be delayed until he had completed the imprisonment portion of his sentence. Under these circumstances, the restitution amount is defensible. See Hunziker, 274 Kan. at ___, (citing State v. Casto, 22 Kan. App. 2d 152, 912 P.2d 772 ).
We see no abuse of discretion.
KBI Laboratory Fees
Goeller next argues that the district judge erred in assessing $450 in KBI lab fees, consisting of one $150 fee for the KBI's analysis of the methamphetamine, one for its analysis of the marijuana, and one for its analysis of Goeller's blood sample.
The controlling version of K.S.A. 28-176 reads in material part:
"(a) Any person convicted . . . shall pay a separate court cost of $150 as a Kansas bureau of investigation laboratory analysis fee for each offense if forensic science or laboratory services are rendered or administered by the Kansas bureau of investigation in connection with the case."
Goeller asserts that the legislature did not state explicitly whether the phrase "each offense" was meant to cover multiple counts in the same information and that the use of the phrase "the case" reflects a legislative intent that only one $150 KBI lab fee be charged in each case, regardless of the number of counts. Goeller claims his reading is consistent with K.S.A. 28-172a(c), which specifically states that the party to whom costs are assessed shall pay only one docket fee per case, even if the case includes multiple counts.
This issue of first impression requires interpretation of a statute. Our standard of review is de novo. State v. Barnes, 275 Kan. 364, 368, 64 P.3d 405 (2003).
Goeller's argument is unpersuasive. K.S.A. 28-172a(c)'s wording demonstrates that the legislature was fully aware how to craft a statute to provide for only one fee per case. For whatever reason, it chose not to draft K.S.A. 28-176 in that manner. The phrase "for each offense" is clear; "each offense" means each count on which Goeller was convicted. It matters not that multiple offenses were charged in one case. The district court did not err.
Inclusion of Felony Conviction in Criminal History
Finally, Goeller claims the district court erred by including a felony conviction in his criminal history that either was or could have been used to increase the severity level of his possession of marijuana sentence. Generally, under K.S.A. 21-4721(e), we have jurisdiction to consider whether the district court erred in determining the appropriate classification of Goeller's prior convictions. State v. Vandervort, 276 Kan. __, Syl. 5, 72 P.3d 925 (2003). However, "' defendant who invites error by stipulating to his or her criminal history cannot request a correction of sentence under 22-3504 after pronouncement of sentence.'" Vandervort, 276 Kan. at __, 72 P.3d at 933 (quoting State v. McBride, 23 Kan. App. 2d 302, Syl. 3, 930 P.2d 618 ). We therefore do not reach the merits of Goeller's argument.
Affirmed.
|