State v. Boyd
Decision Date | 10 March 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 79,079.,79,079. |
Citation | 268 Kan. 600,999 P.2d 265 |
Parties | STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. FRANKIE BOYD, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Daniel C. Estes, assistant appellate defender, argued the cause, and Mary D. Prewitt, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, were on the brief for appellant. Sheryl L. Lidtke, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Nick A. Tomasic, district attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, were with her on the briefs for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is a direct appeal by the defendant, Frankie Boyd, from his convictions by a jury of four counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, and one count of sexual battery. The Court of Appeals held there was sufficient evidence to affirm Boyd's conviction for aggravated criminal sodomy and held it did not have jurisdiction to consider Boyd's remaining four issues. We granted Boyd's petition for review.
The unpublished Court of Appeals' opinion sufficiently sets forth the facts of this case. The Court of Appeals stated:
Boyd raised five issues before the Court of Appeals: (1) sufficiency of the evidence of "force or fear" to support a conviction of aggravated criminal sodomy; (2) failure to instruct the jury on indecent liberties with a child; (3) violation of his Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel; (4) violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and due process; and (5) error in admitting evidence of a previous Wyoming conviction for a similar crime. The Court of Appeals addressed the sufficiency of the evidence issue and affirmed it. The Court of Appeals dismissed the remaining four issues, holding that Boyd's notice of appeal was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
Boyd's notice of appeal states: "Comes now the defendant and appeals from his conviction in the above captioned matter."
The Court of Appeals held that the "conviction" language was not broad enough to include procedural or evidentiary errors claimed by Boyd and dismissed the portion of his case which concerned those issues. The Court of Appeals stated:
The appellate statutes also required that appellants file an abstract which would "include a specification of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered." G.S. 1949, 60-3826. The Supreme Court, at the time, vigorously enforced the requirement that an appellant specify all of the rulings appealed from in his or her notice of appeal. See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335, 381 P.2d 356 (1963) ( ); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33, 367 P.2d 67 (1961) ( ); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319, 356 P.2d 843 (1960) ( ); State v. Lewis, 187 Kan. 221, 222, 356 P.2d 845 (1960) ( ); State v. Trinkle, 186 Kan. 809, 810-11, 352 P.2d 937 (1960) ( ); and State v. Turner, 183 Kan. 496, 499-500, 328 P.2d 733 (1958) ( ). See also Carrick v. McFadden, 216 Kan. 683, 690, 533 P.2d 1249 (1975) ( ).
In 1963, the Kansas Legislature codified the rules of civil and appellate procedure. The current rules do not require a party to specify the errors complained of. K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 60-2103(b) addresses the notice of appeal and sets forth:
(Emphasis added.)
Supreme Court Rule 2.02 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 8) addresses the "Form of Notice of Appeal" for the Court of Appeals. The rule requires that parties "substantially" follow the form: "Notice is hereby given that (specify the party or parties taking the appeal) appeals(s) from (designate the judgement or part thereof appealed from) to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas." (Emphasis added.)
As with the advent of notice pleading, the appellate process was greatly simplified in 1963. It is clear that by the legislative changes in 1963, the legislature intended it to be easier to take an appeal to an appellate court in Kansas. The process was simplified, with the goal being to afford every criminal defendant at least one appeal. K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 60-2103 was originally drafted, and remains virtually the same today, to only require an appellant to "designate the judgment or part thereof appealed from." There is no statute or court rule which expressly requires an appellant to set forth all of the errors that will be contested on appeal in the notice of appeal. When the legislature repealed G.S. 1949, 60-3306, and 60-3826 and enacted K.S.A. 60-2103, it was a signal that it is no longer necessary to specify each and every issue to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Clark
...court," thus creating a " ‘a nearly unlimited right of review.’ " Berreth , 294 Kan. at 110, 273 P.3d 752 (quoting State v. Boyd , 268 Kan. 600, 605, 999 P.2d 265 [2000] ).In contrast, K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3602(b) contemplates four circumstances in which the State may appeal as matter of ri......
-
Mundy v. State
...that parties file a notice of appeal as well as an abstract specifying exact errors subject to the appeal. State v. Boyd , 268 Kan. 600, 602–04, 999 P.2d 265 (2000). In 1963, the legislature enacted 60-2103 with the purpose of making it "easier to take an appeal," and since its enactment th......
-
State v. Berreth
...“While the State only has limited appeal rights, a criminal defendant has a nearly unlimited right of review.” State v. Boyd, 268 Kan. 600, 605–08, 999 P.2d 265 (2000); see also State v. Walker, 260 Kan. 803, 806, 926 P.2d 218 (1996) (noting that appeals by the State in criminal cases are t......
-
State v. Allen
...an appellant to “designate the judgment or part of the judgment or other appealable order.” Furthermore, in State v. Boyd, 268 Kan. 600, 604, 606, 999 P.2d 265 (2000), the Kansas Supreme Court outlined the legislative history of notice pleading and observed that now “[t]here is no statute o......