City of Overland Park v. Estell, s. 50189
Decision Date | 31 March 1979 |
Docket Number | 50190,Nos. 50189,s. 50189 |
Citation | 592 P.2d 909,225 Kan. 599 |
Parties | CITY OF OVERLAND PARK, Kansas, Appellant, v. Reginald ESTELL, and Cynthia Ann McDiffett, Appellees. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In consolidated cases involving a district judge's dismissals with prejudice of complaints in appealed municipal court convictions, the sole basis for the dismissals being the refusal of the municipal court to appoint and compensate counsel for the indigent defendants on their appeals to the district court, the record is examined and it is Held : The district judge erred in dismissing the complaints as more fully set forth in the opinion.
Neil Shortlidge, Asst. City Atty., for the City of Overland Park, argued the cause, and Michael D. Mance, Asst. City Atty., was on the brief for the appellant.
No appearance by the appellees.
Lyndus A. Henry, County Counselor, Overland Park, was on the brief for the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners, amicus curiae.
These unrelated cases involve appeals by the City of Overland Park from orders of the district court dismissing the complaints against the defendants. The cases were consolidated on appeal as they involve identical issues.
In the municipal court of the City of Overland Park both defendants were convicted of violations of ordinances of that city, were fined, and were sentenced to terms in the city jail. Each was found indigent in the municipal court and was represented in the proceedings by court appointed counsel. Each defendant appealed the municipal court conviction to the district court. When the cases were called for arraignment on April 12, 1978, before the district court, each defendant was accompanied by counsel appointed by the municipal court. Each defendant advised the court that the condition of indigency still existed and requested appointment of counsel. The district court judge suggested each defendant return to the municipal court for appointment of counsel and took their requests for counsel under advisement.
The municipal court denied both defendants' motions for appointment of counsel on the basis that the municipal court no longer had jurisdiction of the cases as they were on appeal, and further noted the cases were to be tried de novo in the district court. On May 10, 1978, both defendants again appeared in district court. What transpired at that hearing is set forth in the following excerpt from the identical journal entries filed in both cases:
Appellant City of Overland Park raises the following two issues on appeal:
1. Whether the district court erred in ruling that the municipal court judge had jurisdiction to appoint counsel for de novo appeals of municipal court convictions to the district court and in dismissing the complaints for failure of the municipal court judge to appoint counsel.
2. Whether the district court erred in ordering the municipal court judge to appoint and bear the costs of counsel to represent the defendants on an appeal by the plaintiff/appellant to the Supreme Court of the district court's orders dismissing the complaints as set forth in Issue No. 1.
In Algersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972), the United States Supreme Court ruled that no accused could be deprived of his liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied the assistance of counsel. The 1973 Kansas legislature enacted K.S.A. 12-4405, relating to municipal courts:
It should be noted that the right to counsel of each of the defendants herein is not disputed.
The statutes relative to appeals from the municipal court are as follows:
K.S.A. 12-4601. Appeals; stay of proceedings.
K.S.A. 12-4602. Same; procedure.
K.S.A.1978 Supp. 22-3609. Appeals from municipal courts.
K.S.A. 22-3610. Hearing on appeal.
K.S.A. 22-3611. Judgment on appeal.
"If upon appeal to the district court the defendant is convicted, the district court shall impose sentence upon him and render judgment against him for all costs in the case, both in the district court and in the court appealed from."
Nowhere in any of the aforecited statutes is there any reference to who pays the cost of appointed counsel for appeals from the municipal court to the district court. K.S.A. 12-4405, previously cited, provides that financial inability to employ counsel shall be determined by the methods provided by K.S.A. 22-4504. The reference to K.S.A. 22-4504 simply directs the municipal court how to determine indigency and does not assist in resolving the issues before us.
The brief of the City of Overland Park and the amicus curiae brief of the Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County offer no authority in support of their respective positions as to who pays the attorneys' fees (the defendants having filed no briefs herein). We have, likewise, found no authority directly on point.
In resolving this issue we must look to the nature of such appeals to the district court.
This court has frequently said that a district court, upon hearing an appeal from police court, Sits as the police judge. Dodge City v. Day, 195 Kan. 303, 305, 403 P.2d 1004 (1965); City of Fort Scott v. Arbuckle, 165 Kan. 374, 388, 196 P.2d 217 (1948); In re Sanford, 117 Kan. 750, 752, 232 P. 1053 (1925). In Arbuckle, 165 Kan. at 388, 196 P.2d at 226, we said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Stephan v. Smith, 60643
...This language was later quoted with approval in Clark v. Ivy, 240 Kan. at 202, 727 P.2d 493; and City of Overland Park v. Estell & McDiffett, 225 Kan. 599, 604-05, 592 P.2d 909 (1979). The court in Keener was not faced with the precise issues which face this court today. The issue in Keener......
-
City of Shawnee v. Adem
...Gardner v. Barca , No. 114,613, 2016 WL 5344133, at *2 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished opinion) (citing City of Overland Park v. Estell & McDiffett , 225 Kan. 599, 602-03, 592 P.2d 909 [1979] ; City of Dodge City v. Anderson , 20 Kan. App. 2d 272, 274, 886 P.2d 901 [1994] ). Since we have con......
-
City of Dodge City v. Anderson, 70623
...district court judge hearing a case on appeal from a municipal court sits as a municipal court judge. City of Overland Park v. Estell & McDiffett, 225 Kan. 599, 603, 592 P.2d 909 (1979). If a municipal court has no authority to order the repayment of the attorney fees, neither does the dist......
-
City of Overland Park v. Fricke
...in district court on appeals from municipal court convictions. This dispute was recently settled in City of Overland Park v. Estell & McDiffett, 225 Kan. 599, 592 P.2d 909 (1979). The city's argument that the dismissal of the complaint by the district court was in error rests solely on the ......