State v. Chamberlin

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 120,462

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN LEE CHAMBERLIN,
Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; BRUCE C. BROWN, judge. Opinion filed July 19, 2019.
Affirmed.

Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

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

PER CURIAM: Justin Lee Chamberlin appeals the district court's decision to deny
his request for a dispositional departure to probation for his offender-registration
violation conviction. He argues that he presented substantial and compelling reasons to
support a dispositional-departure sentence.

But the district court is not required to impose a departure sentence even if
substantial and compelling reasons would justify a departure. The district court found that
public-safety considerations justified a prison sentence, and a reasonable person could
agree. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Chamberlin's motion for a dispositional departure from a prison sentence to probation.

2

With that overview, we will now review what happened in the district court in
more detail. Chamberlin pleaded guilty to one count of offender-registration violation.
Based on Chamberlin's criminal-history score of G and a special rule that applies to
violations of the Kansas Offender Registration Act, Chamberlin's presumptive sentence
was 22, 24, or 26 months in prison. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6804(a), (m).

Before sentencing, Chamberlin moved the court to grant both a dispositional
departure to probation and a downward-durational departure to a shorter prison sentence.
The district court granted Chamberlin's motion for a downward-durational sentence—
shortening the prison sentence to 12 months—but denied Chamberlin's request for a
dispositional departure to probation.

On appeal, Chamberlin argues that the district court should have sentenced him to
probation instead of prison. We review a district court's denial of a departure motion for
an abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion occurs when the district court makes an error
of law or fact, or when judicial action is so "arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable" that no
reasonable person could agree with the district court's decision. State v. Jones, 306 Kan.
948, Syl. ¶ 7, 398 P.3d 856 (2017).

A district court must impose the presumptive sentence for a crime unless it finds
that substantial and compelling reasons warrant a departure. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-
6815(a). The term "substantial" is defined as "something that is real, not imagined,
something with substance and not ephemeral." State v. Jolly, 301 Kan. 313, Syl. ¶ 9, 342
P.3d 935 (2015). "Compelling" reasons are those that force the court "'to abandon the
status quo and to venture beyond the sentence that it would ordinarily impose.' [Citation
omitted.]" State v. Hines, 296 Kan. 608, 620, 294 P.3d 270 (2013). A district court
considers both mitigating and aggravating factors when determining whether substantial
and compelling reasons exist for granting a departure from a guidelines sentence. See
State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796, 809, 248 P.3d 256 (2011).
3


In his motion and at his sentencing hearing, Chamberlin said there were
substantial and compelling reasons why probation was more appropriate than prison,
including that he didn't have a serious criminal history, had taken responsibility for his
actions, and had consistently registered under the Offender Registration Act (except for
this one failure to register). Chamberlin argues that in light of these factors, the district
court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a dispositional departure.

But even if those grounds could have been substantial and compelling reasons to
justify a dispositional departure to probation, the district court wasn't required to impose
a departure sentence. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6818(a) ("When a departure sentence is
appropriate, the sentencing judge may depart from the sentencing guidelines." [Emphasis
added.]; State v. White, No. 113,915, 2016 WL 4063967, at *2 (Kan. App. 2016)
(unpublished opinion). We find no abuse of discretion in the court's decision not to grant
probation to Chamberlain.

In denying the request for a departure to probation, the district court said the
reason for the offender-registration law was to give citizens a way to know where
offenders were, "so that people can make adjustment[s] in their lives, they can make
choices about where they're going to live, [and] they can make choices about what kind
of security or what things they need to avoid or things they need to do with their kids." In
addition to those concerns, the court also had information about Chamberlain's past
offenses. While his criminal-history score was relatively low (G, the third-lowest score
on a scale from A to I), that doesn't mean there were no significant offenses.

The presentence-investigation report showed 17 past offenses; Chamberlain
challenged two of those at sentencing and the State chose not to present evidence about
them. So that left 15 convictions for the court to consider. In addition to the 2010
aggravated battery that led to the registration requirement, Chamberlain had four DUI
4

convictions, four driving-while-suspended convictions, and convictions for criminal
damage to property, telephone harassment, criminal trespass, and interfering with a law-
enforcement officer. And he committed the failure-to-register offense while still on post-
release supervision for a felony DUI conviction.

Given the nature of Chamberlin's underlying crime of aggravated battery, the
public-safety purposes of the offender-registration law, and Chamberlain's criminal
record, a reasonable person could agree with the district court's decision not to grant a
dispositional departure to probation. Chamberlain has not shown that the district court
based its decision on any factual or legal error, so we conclude that there was no abuse of
discretion.

On Chamberlin's motion, we accepted this appeal for summary disposition under
K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h) and Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2019 Kan. S.
Ct. R. 47). We have reviewed the record available to the district court, and we find no
error in the court's decision to deny Chamberlin's request for a dispositional departure.

We affirm the district court's judgment.