Supreme Court reverses restitution order against convicted murderer

The Kansas Supreme Court today reversed a restitution order against a defendant from Wyandotte County.

The court stated that the restitution plan was unworkable for Jason R. Tucker, who was sentenced to life in prison without parole after pleading guilty to capital murder charges.

According to court documents, when Tucker was sentenced in Wyandotte County District Court, the state requested restitution of $5,000 for funeral expenses of one of the victims, and $13,587.85 for medical expenses of Balza. Although the defense attorney argued the restitution plan was unworkable because Tucker would spend the rest of his life in prison, the judge in the case ordered restitution of $5,000 plus $200 for DNA tests, and court costs.

In return for pleading guilty to one count of capital murder, the death penalty was not sought against Tucker, and other charges were dropped.

In his plea agreement, according to court documents, Tucker admitted forcing his way into a residence, after which he shot and killed Jeremy Rocha, Bernadette Gosserand and Vincent Rocha. He also shot Bryan Balza in the back, according to court documents. Balza, who had a protection from abuse order against Tucker, survived and identified Tucker as the shooter. The agreed sentence was to be life without possibility of parole.

The shootings took place in May 2017 near the 1900 block of South Boeke Street in Kansas City, Kansas.

Before sentencing, the Wyandotte County District Court found Tucker was indigent based on a financial affidavit showing the defendant made $14 a month at time of arrest, according to court documents.

The Supreme Court held the restitution was unworkable because the impossibility of parole meant Tucker would not have an opportunity to earn money after release from prison.

If the sentencing court intends for the restitution to be paid while in prison, it must specifically make such an order on the record and had not done so in this case, the Supreme Court stated.

The court’s decision is at https://www.kscourts.org/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Opinions/119242.pdf?ext=.pdf.