1. K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 21-4603d(a) requires under certain circumstances the sentencing court to consider placement in the Labette Correctional Conservation Camp or in a community intermediate sanction center.
2. Under the facts of this case, because the defendant did not meet all of the admission criteria of the Labette Correctional Conservation Camp (LCCC), the sentencing court's failure to consider placement in the LCCC was harmless error.
3. Under the facts of this case, because community intermediate sanction centers (CISC), as provided in K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 21-4603d(a), do not exist, the sentencing court's failure to consider placement in a CISC was not error.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; RICHARD T. BALLINGER, judge. Opinion filed February 9, 2001. Affirmed.
Jennifer Roth, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, for appellant.
Richard A. Olmstead, assistant district attorney, Nola Foulston, district attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, for appellee.
Before GERNON, P.J., KNUDSON and BEIER, JJ.
KNUDSON, J.: Reginald L. Morrison appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court. Morrison contends the court committed reversible error by failing to consider placement in the Labette Correctional Conservation Camp (LCCC) or in a community intermediate sanction center (CISC), pursuant to K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 21-4603d(a).
Morrison pled guilty to one count of robbery with a criminal history of 5-I. This placed Morrison in a border box. See K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 21-4704. At sentencing, Morrison asked the district court to consider probation with inpatient placement for substance abuse. The court denied Morrison's request and sentenced him to 31 months' confinement.
K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 21-4603d(a) provides:
"[P]rior to sentencing a defendant to incarceration whose offense is classified in grid blocks 5-H, 5-I or 6-G of the sentencing guidelines grid for nondrug crimes . . . , the court shall consider placement of the defendant in the Labette correctional conservation camp . . . or a community intermediate sanction center. Pursuant to this paragraph the defendant shall not be sentenced to imprisonment if space is available in a conservation camp or a community intermediate sanction center and the defendant meets all of the . . . placement criteria unless the court states on the record the reasons for not placing the defendant in a conservation camp or a community intermediate sanction center." (Emphasis added.)
The criteria for placement at the LCCC provides that an applicant must be between the ages of 16 and 30 with no record of violent history. At the time of sentencing, Morrison was 39 years old and convicted of a violent felony.
Morrison does not meet the criteria for placement at the LCCC as provided in K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 21-4603d(a). This fact distinguishes Morrison's case from the holding in State v. Schick, 25 Kan. App. 2d 702, 971 P.2d 346 (1998), rev. denied 266 Kan. 1114 (1999), and the other cases he relies upon in his brief.
Morrison also argues the district court did not consider placement in a CISC. Our preliminary research prompted a show cause order asking the parties to provide us with a definition of a "community intermediate sanction center" and information on where the centers are located. After reviewing their responses, we can report CISCs are no more real than the emperor's new clothes. The legislature has not provided funding to build the CISCs.
Because CISC placement is a legal impossibility, the district court did not err in failing to consider placement in a CISC. We further conclude any failure by the district court to consider placement at LCCC was harmless error. See State v. Clark, 263 Kan. 370, 376, 949 P.2d 1099 (1997).