State v. Livingston ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
    No. 124,534
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
    STATE OF KANSAS,
    Appellee,
    v.
    TAYLER J. LIVINGSTON,
    Appellant.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Appeal from Douglas District Court; AMY J. HANLEY, judge. Opinion filed September 2, 2022.
    Affirmed.
    John A. Boyd, of Harris Kelsey, Chtd., of Ottawa, for appellant.
    Brian Deiter, assistant district attorney, Suzanne Valdez, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt,
    attorney general, for appellee.
    Before GARDNER, P.J., MALONE and CLINE, JJ.
    PER CURIAM: Tayler J. Livingston appeals his sentence following his guilty plea
    to one count of involuntary manslaughter. Livingston's only claim on appeal is that the
    State violated his due process rights at the sentencing hearing by failing to fulfill the
    terms of the plea agreement. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we reject
    Livingston's claim and affirm the district court's judgment.
    1
    FACTS
    On May 8, 2020, the State charged Livingston with one count of involuntary
    manslaughter after he hit a car head-on while driving drunk, killing the other driver.
    Livingston agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the State recommending a downward
    durational departure to 28 months' imprisonment. More specifically, the written plea
    advisory filed with the court stated the plea agreement as follows:
    "Plea[d] guilty as charged in the Complaint. At sentencing, parties will recommend a
    durational departure to 28 months in prison. I will not request probation, file any other
    departures or requests for leniency, and will be required to register as an offender. I will
    pay all court costs and fees, and restitution."
    Livingston acknowledged in the plea advisory that the district court was "not
    bound by the terms of any plea agreement." Livingston later moved for a downward
    durational departure asserting that he "has taken responsibility for his actions by pleading
    guilty as charged, has demonstrated genuine remorse for his conduct, and has taken steps
    to rehabilitate himself while this case was pending."
    At the sentencing hearing on September 28, 2021, when the district court asked for
    recommendations of counsel, the State recommended that the district court grant
    Livingston's motion for downward departure and asked the district court to find that
    "there are substantial and compelling reasons to depart downward to [28 months']
    imprisonment." Livingston joined the State in its recommendation and argued that his
    departure motion should be granted mainly because he took responsibility for his actions
    by pleading guilty and spared the family further suffering.
    After arguments from counsel, the victim's sister, cousin, and parents gave victim
    impact statements to the court. Concluding his statement, the victim's cousin said, "I ask
    you not to accept the terms of this plea deal and put Mr. Livingston in a place where he
    2
    can understand what he's taken from us." And the victim's mother "beg[ged]" the district
    court to give Livingston the maximum sentence. After the victim's family spoke, the State
    again recommended the district court grant a downward durational departure. Finally,
    Livingston addressed the court and expressed his sorrow for the harm he caused.
    Following a recess, the district court denied Livingston's departure motion,
    explaining that it could not find substantial and compelling reasons to deviate from the
    sentencing guidelines. The district court sentenced Livingston to the standard
    presumptive term of 41 months' imprisonment with 36 months' postrelease supervision
    and ordered restitution to the victim's family in the amount of $6,841.18. Livingston
    timely filed a notice of appeal.
    ANALYSIS
    On appeal, Livingston claims the State violated his due process rights at the
    sentencing hearing by failing to fulfill the terms of the plea agreement. More specifically,
    Livingston argues that during the plea negotiations, the State represented to him that the
    victim's family supported a lesser sentence. But at the sentencing hearing, the family
    asked the district court to disregard the agreement and impose the maximum sentence.
    Livingston argues that, because the State did not defend this attack on the sentencing
    recommendation, the State violated the terms of the plea agreement.
    The State argues that it upheld its obligations under the plea agreement because
    the terms of the agreement only required the State to recommend a lesser sentence—
    which it did, twice. The State points out that nothing in the record supports Livingston's
    assertion that the agreement hinged on the family's approval.
    Our Supreme Court has held: "'[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a
    promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement
    3
    or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.'" State v. Urista, 
    296 Kan. 576
    , 583, 
    293 P.3d 738
     (2013) (quoting Santobello v. New York, 
    404 U.S. 257
    , 262, 
    92 S. Ct. 495
    , 
    30 L. Ed. 2d 427
     [1971]). A defendant is denied due process when the State does not fulfill a
    promise that it made in consideration of the plea agreement, even when the district court's
    sentencing decision was not influenced by the State's actions at sentencing. Urista, 296
    Kan. at 583. Whether the State breached a plea agreement is a question of law subject to
    unlimited review. State v. Jones, 
    302 Kan. 111
    , 116, 
    351 P.3d 1228
     (2015).
    Livingston concedes the State recommended a lesser sentence, but he asserts it
    failed to "affirmatively state to the court that a reduced sentence was approved by the
    family of the deceased nor to provide any facts, context, or rationale for the court to
    follow the request of the parties." He says that, while the State technically complied with
    the terms of the agreement, it was just "mere lip service" because the State did not
    support the recommendation with facts or legal argument to defend against the family's
    statements.
    Livingston relies only on our Supreme Court's Urista decision to support his
    arguments. The Urista court held that the State could violate a plea agreement even if it
    makes the promised sentencing recommendation if the prosecutor's other comments
    undermine the sentencing recommendation. 296 Kan. at 584. And this court added that
    "[a] prosecutor does not need to be enthusiastic in making the recommendation agreed
    upon in the plea bargain. But the prosecutor must at least make the recommendation, and
    the prosecutor may not so undermine the recommendation that only lip service has been
    paid to it. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Foster, 
    39 Kan. App. 2d 380
    , 387, 
    180 P.3d 1074
    (2008).
    In Livingston's case, the State promised to recommend the agreed upon sentence
    and join Livingston's request for a downward durational departure if he pled guilty. The
    State delivered on its promise by asking the district court to "[find] that there are
    4
    substantial and compelling reasons to depart downward to [28 months'] imprisonment."
    Following the victim impact statements, the State again asked the district court to grant
    Livingston's departure motion. Unlike the prosecutor in Urista, the prosecutor did not
    make any comments aimed at undermining the State's recommendation or make an end-
    run around Livingston's request for a departure sentence.
    As to Livingston's claim that the State represented to him during plea negotiations
    that the victim's family agreed with the departure sentence, it is important to focus on the
    actual language of the written plea agreement. The plea agreement stated that the "parties
    will recommend a durational departure to 28 month[s] in prison" and that Livingston
    "will not request probation, file any other departures or requests for leniency, and will be
    required to register as an offender." Had the plea agreement stated that the victim's family
    agreed with the negotiated sentence, then Livingston could argue that the approval was
    incorporated into the agreement. But nowhere is the written plea agreement conditioned
    on the family's approval. In fact, Livingston's counsel acknowledged at the sentencing
    hearing that the State had communicated the sentencing recommendation to the victim's
    family and "it was not their preference."
    The Kansas Criminal Code requires that the district court allow the victim of the
    crime or members of the victim's family to address the court at sentencing, if they request
    to do so. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3424(e). Thus, it was appropriate for the victim's
    family to address the court and give their recommendations at Livingston's sentencing
    hearing. Even after members of the victim's family spoke against the terms of the plea
    deal, the prosecutor again asked the district court to grant Livingston's departure motion.
    Livingston points to no authority to support his claim that the prosecutor should have
    presented additional facts and legal arguments to defend against the family's statements.
    In summary, the State complied with the terms of the plea agreement by
    requesting that the district court grant Livingston's motion for a lesser sentence. Despite
    5
    the joint recommendation, the district court found no substantial and compelling reasons
    to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Livingston acknowledged this possibility in his
    signed plea advisory, regardless of the parties' recommendations. The State took no
    action to undermine its recommendation at sentencing, and the victim's family had a right
    to be at the hearing and speak. The record does not support Livingston's claim that the
    State violated his due process rights by failing to fulfill the terms of the plea agreement.
    Affirmed.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 124534

Filed Date: 9/2/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/2/2022