State v. Carter

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 116,260

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

DUANE C. CARTER,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; BILL L. KLAPPER, judge. Opinion filed May 26, 2017.
Vacated and remanded with directions.

Corrine E. Gunning, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Ethan Zipf-Sigler, assistant district attorney, Mark A. Dupree, district attorney, and Derek
Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before ATCHESON, P.J., MALONE and POWELL, JJ.

Per Curiam: As part of the sentence the Wyandotte County District Court
imposed on Defendant Duane Carter following his guilty plea to felony possession of
cocaine, he was ordered to reimburse the Board of Indigents' Defense Services (BIDS)
$250 for the fees it had paid his appointed lawyer. For his only issue on appeal, Carter
says the district court failed to adequately gauge his ability to pay that amount, as
required by State v. Robinson, 281 Kan. 538, 546, 132 P.3d 934 (2006). We agree and,
therefore, vacate that part of Carter's sentence and remand for a hearing on the
reimbursement of fees conforming to Robinson.
2


Indigent criminal defendants, such as Carter, are entitled to appointed lawyers but
may be required to reimburse the fees paid to those lawyers if they are convicted. K.S.A.
22-4513. As provided in K.S.A. 22-4513(b), the district court "shall take account of the
financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of such
sum will impose." The Robinson court held that the statute requires the district court
"consider the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that
payment will impose explicitly, stating on the record how those factors have been
weighed in the court's decision." Robinson, 281 Kan. at 546.

Here, the district court determined only that Carter believed he could secure
employment in the near future. There was no discussion about the type of work Carter
anticipated doing or what he expected to earn. Likewise, the district court did not inquire
into Carter's ongoing financial obligations, such as child support, or existing debts.
Although the district court reduced the attorney fee reimbursement from $682.50 to $250,
that is not an adequate substitute for the directed inquiry and resulting assessment
mandated by K.S.A. 22-4513 and described in Robinson. See State v. Palacios-Chavez,
No. 112,495, 2015 WL 7436772, at *1 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion).

We vacate the BIDS reimbursement portion of Carter's sentence and remand to the
district court with directions to conduct a hearing on attorney fees conforming to the
requirements of K.S.A. 22-4513 and Robinson.