State v. McManus

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 119,124

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH C. MCMANUS,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; WARREN M. WILBERT, judge. Opinion filed October 19,
2018. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

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

PER CURIAM: Joseph C. McManus appeals his sentence following his convictions
of burglary and misdemeanor theft. We granted McManus' motion for summary
disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). The
State has responded and requested that the district court's judgment be affirmed.

On September 8, 2017, McManus pled guilty to burglary and misdemeanor theft.
Under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6804(p), the sentence for the burglary conviction was
presumed imprisonment. McManus filed a motion for departure agreed to by the State.
On November 1, 2017, the district court denied the departure motion and imposed a
presumptive sentence of 21 months' imprisonment for the burglary conviction and a
consecutive 12-month jail term for the theft conviction. McManus timely appealed.
2

On appeal, McManus claims the district court erred by denying his request for a
nonprison sentence for his burglary conviction. But as McManus concedes, Kansas
statutes and caselaw do not grant this court jurisdiction to review the imposition of a
presumptive sentence, which includes the denial of McManus' departure motion. See
K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6820(c)(1); State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, 841-52, 190 P.3d 207
(2008); State v. Flores, 268 Kan. 657, 659, 999 P.2d 919 (2000).

McManus also claims the district court abused its discretion by running his
misdemeanor sentence consecutive to his felony sentence. McManus asserts that we have
no jurisdiction to review this claim, but the State points out that we do. In any event, the
district court could run the misdemeanor sentence consecutive to the felony sentence. See
State v. Huff, 277 Kan. 195, 207, 83 P.3d 206 (2004). McManus fails to present any
argument as to why the district court abused its discretion in running the sentences
consecutively. See State v. Marshall, 303 Kan. 438, 445, 362 P.3d 587 (2015) (abuse of
discretion found when no reasonable person would take view adopted by trial court).

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.