State v. Owens

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Nos. 117,030
117,031

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

ALONZO D. OWENS,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; STEPHEN J. TERNES, judge. Opinion on remand filed
February 1, 2019. Remanded with directions.

Kai Tate Mann, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek
Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before MCANANY, P.J., GARDNER, J., and TIMOTHY L. DUPREE, District Judge, assigned.

PER CURIAM: This probation revocation case comes before us on remand from the
Kansas Supreme Court, which summarily vacated our decision and remanded it to us for
reconsideration in light of in State v. Clapp, 308 Kan. 976, 425 P.3d 605 (2018). Clapp
reaffirmed that implicit determinations are not enough when particularized findings are
required by statute:

"Instead, '"[w]hen something is to be set forth with particularity, it must be distinct rather
than general, with exactitude of detail, especially in description or stated with attention to
2

or concern with details."' Miller, 32 Kan. App. 2d at 1102 (quoting State v. Huskey, 17
Kan. App. 2d 237, Syl. ¶ 2, 834 P.2d 1371 [1992])." Clapp, 308 Kan. at 989-90.

We applied that rule of law in this case, finding "[t]he statute requires that the
court set forth with particularity the reasons for finding that the safety of members of the
public will be jeopardized or that the welfare of the offender will not be served by such
sanction." State v. Owens, No. 117,030, 2018 WL 560951, at *3 (Kan. App. 2018)
(unpublished opinion).

We held this standard was met by the district court's express oral statements
during Owens' probation revocation. But the Supreme Court disagrees. We therefore
remand this case to the district court for reconsideration. If the district court finds that
Owens' probation should be revoked, it shall set forth, with greater particularity than
previously, its reasons for finding that public safety will be jeopardized or the defendant's
welfare will not be furthered with an intermediate sanction.

Remanded with directions.