SESSION OF 2020
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR
HOUSE BILL NO. 2034
As Recommended by Senate Committee on
Judiciary

Brief*
Senate Sub. for HB 2034 would amend law related to
court orders for restitution by criminal defendants, as follows.
Under current law, a court is required to order restitution
unless the court finds compelling circumstances that would
render a plan of restitution unworkable. The bill would amend
this provision to require a court to order restitution and to
specify that ordered restitution shall be due immediately,
unless the court orders that the defendant be given a
specified time to pay or be allowed to pay in specified
installments, or the court finds compelling circumstances that
would render restitution unworkable, either in whole or in part.
Current provisions requiring the court to state reasons for
unworkability on the record and requiring the court to initiate
collection proceedings if the defendant is in noncompliance
with the restitution order after 60 days would be amended to
reflect the above amendments. The collection provisions also
would be amended to ensure consistency in statutory
phrasing and reflect enacted changes to related statutes.
A provision would be added to allow a defendant subject
to a restitution order entered prior to the effective date of the
bill to file a motion prior to December 31, 2020, proposing
payment of restitution in specified installments, if the order
does not give the defendant a specified time to pay or set
payment in specified installments. The court could recall the
restitution order from the assigned agent until the court rules
____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org
on the motion. If the court does not order payment in
specified installments, or if the defendant does not file a
motion by the above date, the restitution would be due
immediately.
The bill would specify the above amendments are
procedural in nature and shall be construed and applied
retroactively.
The bill would amend the statute governing conditions of
probation or suspended sentence to direct that reparation or
restitution in such cases be made in accordance with the
procedure amended by the bill.
The bill would be in effect upon publication in the
Kansas Register.

Background
As introduced, HB 2034 would have created the
Supported Decision-Making Agreements Act. The bill was
amended by the Senate Committee on Judiciary (Senate
Committee) and rereferred to the Senate Committee in
February 2020. On May 20, 2020, the Senate Committee
recommended a substitute bill replacing that language with
the provisions of SB 497 regarding court orders for restitution.

SB 497
The bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on
Assessment and Taxation at the request of Senator Miller on
behalf of Senator Wilborn.
In the Senate Committee on Judiciary hearing, a
representative of Butler and Associates testified in support of
the bill, stating it is intended to address the Kansas Court of
Appeals decision in State v. Roberts, ___ Kan. App. 2d ___,
461 P.3d 477 (February 21, 2020), which calls into doubt the

2- 2034
validity of numerous restitution orders across the state. No
other testimony was submitted.
According to the fiscal note prepared by the Division of
the Budget on SB 497, the Office of Judicial Administration
(OJA) indicates the Roberts decision requires a payment plan
be implemented before restitution can be sent to collections,
increasing the time court personnel must spend in processing
and implementing payment plans, as well as potentially
tracking and resentencing defendants. OJA indicates
enactment of the bill would reverse these implications of the
Roberts decision and reduce the increased expenditure. OJA
also states the bill could have a fiscal effect on revenues to
the Judicial Branch, but the fiscal effect of expenditures and
revenues to the Judicial Branch cannot be estimated.
The Office of the Attorney General indicates enactment
of the bill would result in additional litigation costs in cases
where restitution has been ordered and payment plans have
not been made by the court, but it cannot estimate the fiscal
effect of the bill, since the number of defendants who may file
motions under the new provision asking for a payment plan is
unknown.
Any fiscal effect associated with enactment of the bill is
not reflected in The FY 2021 Governor’s Budget Report.


3- 2034


Statutes affected:
As Amended by House Committee: 21-5417, 21-6418
As Amended by Senate Committee: 21-5417, 21-6418
Version 4: 21-6604, 21-6607
Enrolled - Law effective June 11, 2020: 21-6604, 21-6607