State v. Deggs

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 117,622

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

JAYCEE D. DEGGS,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; BRUCE C. BROWN, judge. Opinion filed October 6, 2017.
Appeal dismissed.

Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

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

LEBEN, J.: Jaycee Deggs appeals the sentence he received after he pled guilty to
one count of fleeing and eluding a police officer. Based on sentencing guidelines, Deggs'
presumptive sentence was 12 months on probation with an underlying prison sentence of
11 to 13 months. The district court instead gave Deggs an 18-month probation term (with
a 13-month underlying sentence). The district court concluded that a longer probation
term would be to Deggs' long-term benefit because it would give him time to complete
drug and alcohol treatment, receive mental-health counseling, and have additional
support towards rehabilitation.

2

Deggs recognizes that a statute authorizes the district court to enter a probation
period longer than the presumptive one. K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6608(c)(5) provides for
this—and it also states that such a sentence can't be appealed:

"[I]f the court finds and sets forth with particularity the reasons for finding that
the safety of the members of the public will be jeopardized or that the welfare of the
inmate will not be served by the length of the probation terms [otherwise provided by
statute], the court may impose a longer period of probation. Such an increase shall not be
considered a departure and shall not be subject to appeal." K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-
6608(c)(5).

Aside from the increased term of probation, the remainder of Deggs' sentence was a
presumptive guidelines sentence, and presumptive sentences are not appealable, either.
K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6820(c)(1). Since the entire sentence consists of a presumptive
prison term, which is not appealable under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6820(c)(1), and the
longer-than-normal probation term, which is not appealable under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-
6608(c)(5), we must consider whether we have jurisdiction to consider Deggs' appeal.

Our court has held that despite these jurisdictional limits, we do have jurisdiction
to consider whether a district court abused its discretion by not sufficiently detailing the
reasons it decided a longer-than-normal probation term was appropriate. See State v.
Jones, 30 Kan. App. 2d 210, 213-14, 41 P.3d 293 (2001); State v. Anderson-Stiles, No.
115,733, 2017 WL 383430, at *2 (Kan. App. 2017) (unpublished opinion). But Deggs
does not argue on appeal that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation
of its ruling. We have separately reviewed the sentencing transcript and find that the
district court set forth with particularity the reasons for its findings.

The court heard testimony about Deggs' mental-health history at the sentencing
hearing, as well as testimony about his use of illegal drugs. Based on Deggs' mental-
health issues and drug addiction, the court said a longer probation term was "in Mr.
3

Deggs' welfare" because "I just don't think a year is long enough to give him the
assistance he needs to change his life." The court noted Deggs' "lengthy criminal history
and noncompliance in [his] previous probation" and also concluded "that the safety of the
public is benefitted by a longer period of probation." In the context of the court's other
comments at this hearing and the evidence presented, the court's findings were sufficient.

We are left, then, with a presumptive sentence that cannot be appealed combined
with a longer-than-normal probation that, so long as sufficient findings are made, cannot
be appealed. We have found the findings sufficient. We therefore lack jurisdiction to
consider the merits of Deggs' appeal, in which he argues that the district court should not
have given him a probation longer than 12 months.

We granted Deggs' motion for summary disposition of this appeal under K.S.A.
2016 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h) and Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R.
48). After reviewing that motion and the State's response, we dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.