Posted on November 16, 2024
Charges Dismissed, or Just Amended? The Answer May Cost Wrongfully Convicted Defendants
In re Wrongful Conviction of Mashaney, No. 126,550, 2024 WL 4576237 (Kan. Oct. 25, 2024).
Author: Kaegan Cowan, Staff Editor
Issue: In claims for wrongful conviction and imprisonment, is Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-5004’s requirement—that “the charges [be] dismissed”—satisfied when the criminal accusation presented are terminated and the defendant is relieved of the accusation’s criminal liability?
Answer: Yes. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-5004(c)(1)(B)’s requirement that “the charges were dismissed” requires both “terminating the accusation presented in court and relieving the defendant of that accusation’s criminal liability.”
Facts: In 2004, a jury convicted Jason Mashaney of aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. In 2011, those charges were vacated and Mashaney entered an Alford plea[1] to lesser charges. Mashaney sued the State in 2020 for monetary damages, alleging wrongful conviction and imprisonment under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-5004. The district court awarded him $414,600, reasoning that the accusations against Mashaney had been “effectively dismissed” when he pled to reduced charges. The State appealed, arguing that such amendment did not satisfy the statutory requirement that his charges were “dismissed.”
Discussion: The Kansas Supreme Court clarified the meanings of “charge” and “dismiss” under § 60-5004. In doing so, the court—guided by the Sims decision[2]—explained that “charge” means “the criminal accusation presented in court,” rather than “a written statement presented to a court accusing a person of the commission of a crime.” Further, the court held that this definition of “charge” ultimately “better aligns with the legislative intent [behind § 60-5004] than the district court’s view.”[3]
The court found that the district court erroneously interpreted § 60-5004 to equate amending criminal charges with dismissing them. Instead of terminating the accusations against Mashaney presented in court, the amended charges simply modified those accusations. Dismissal “signifies finality—meaning the charges at issue are completely discontinued.”[4] Amendment of Mashaney’s charges rather “continued [the charges] in a different form . . . .”[5] Judgment reversed.
Key Authorities: Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 60-5004, 22-3201(e)); In re Wrongful Conviction of Sims, 542 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2024); In re Wrongful Conviction of Spangler, 547 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2024).
[1] See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970); State v. Case, 213 P.3d 429, Syl. ¶ 2 (Kan. 2009) (“An Alford plea is a plea of guilty to a criminal charge but without admitting to its commission . . . .”).
[2] In re Wrongful Conviction of Sims, 542 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2024) (holding that resentencing defendant, previously wrongfully convicted of felony, for misdemeanor did not make defendant eligible for compensation under 60-5004).
[3] Id.
[4] Id. at *4.
[5] Id.
