State v. Ehrlich
| Decision Date | 08 August 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 96,797.,96,797. |
| Citation | 189 P.3d 491 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Robert L. EHRLICH, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Patrick H. Dunn, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the petition for review for appellant.
Appellee waived oral argument.
Robert L. Ehrlich seeks review of that portion of the decision by our Court of Appeals in State v. Ehrlich, No. 96,797, unpublished opinion filed June 15, 2007, 160 P.3d 481, 2007 WL 1747913, dismissing his challenge to the imposition of Board of Indigents' Defense Services (BIDS) attorney fees pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4513.
Ehrlich pled guilty to one count of possession of marijuana, and on August 19, 2003, the district court sentenced Ehrlich to probation for 12 months, with an underlying term of 11 months of incarceration. The court also ordered Ehrlich to reimburse BIDS for attorney fees and the $50 application fee. The district court did not consider on the record Ehrlich's financial resources or the burden that would be imposed by payment as required by K.S.A. 22-4513.
On January 12, 2006, the district court revoked his probation based on stipulated violations and ordered him to serve his underlying sentence. On January 23, 2006, Ehrlich filed a notice of appeal, which referred only to the district court's order revoking his probation.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of Ehrlich's probation and dismissed his challenge to the BIDS fees for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that Ehrlich's appeal as to the BIDS issue was untimely because the notice of appeal was filed later than 10 days from August 19, 2003, his original sentencing date. Ehrlich, slip op at 2-3. We granted Ehrlich's petition for review as to the BIDS attorney fees issue only.
Ehrlich contends the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his challenge to the BIDS attorney fees. He asks us to reverse that portion of the district court's judgment ordering him to pay the BIDS attorney fees because the district court failed to consider his financial resources or the burden that would be imposed by payment. This issue was resolved by our decision in State v. Robinson, 281 Kan. 538, Syl. ¶ 1, 132 P.3d 934 (2006), in which we held that the sentencing court must consider on the record the financial resources of the defendant before imposing BIDS attorney fees. In order to address this issue, however, we must have subject-matter jurisdiction.
Whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law subject to unlimited appellate review. State v. Huff, 278 Kan. 214, 217, 92 P.3d 604 (2004). The right to appeal is purely a statutory right; no appellate review is required by the United States Constitution or the Kansas Constitution. It is the established rule in this state that an appellate court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by a defendant in a criminal case unless the defendant appeals within the time prescribed by the statutes providing for such an appeal. State v. Legero, 278 Kan. 109, Syl. ¶ 2, 91 P.3d 1216 (2004). Pursuant to Article 3, § 3, of the Kansas Constitution, the Supreme Court has only such appellate jurisdiction as is conferred by statute, and when the record discloses a lack of jurisdiction, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal. State v. Flynn, 274 Kan. 473, 477, 55 P.3d 324 (2002).
Under K.S.A. 22-3608(c), a defendant has 10 days from the date a judgment is orally pronounced from the bench to file a notice of appeal. See State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 400, 122 P.3d 356 (2005). The Court of Appeals found that Ehrlich had 10 days from August 19, 2003, his original sentencing date, in which to file his notice of appeal. The record on appeal contains only one notice of appeal, filed after revocation of probation on January 23, 2006, which was more than 2 years beyond the prescribed time limitation.
The filing of a timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional, and if the appeal is not taken within the 10-day period fixed by statute, it must be dismissed. Phinney, 280 Kan. at 400, 122 P.3d 356.
"A limited exception to the general rule requiring a timely notice of appeal from sentencing is recognized in the interest of fundamental fairness only in those cases where an indigent defendant was either: (1) not informed of the rights to appeal; (2) was not furnished an attorney to perfect an appeal; or (3) was furnished with an attorney for that purpose who failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patton
...reaching the merits of an out-of-time appeal but do not discuss the application of Ortiz exceptions in any detail. See State v. Ehrlich, 286 Kan. ___, 189 P.3d 491 (2008); Mitchner v. State, No. 97,729, ___ Kan.App. ___, 2008 WL 2369813, unpublished opinion filed June 6, 2008 (affirming den......
-
Mundy v. State
... ... 602103(b), a notice of appeal must designate the judgment or part thereof appealed from. Thus, [a]n appellate court only obtains jurisdiction over the rulings identified in the notice of appeal. State v. Bogguess, 293 Kan. 743, 756, 268 P.3d 481 (2012) (citing State v. Ehrlich, 286 Kan. 923, 926, 189 P.3d 491 [2008] ; State v. Huff, 278 Kan. 214, 217, 92 P.3d 604 [2004] ). Appellate courts must liberally construe notices of appeal to assure justice in every proceeding. State v. Wilkins, 269 Kan. 256, 270, 7 P.3d 252 (2000) (quoting State v. Griffen, 241 Kan. 68, 70, ... ...
-
State v. Bogguess
...issued a mandate. An appellate court only obtains jurisdiction over the rulings identified in the notice of appeal. State v. Ehrlich, 286 Kan. 923, 926, 189 P.3d 491 (2008); State v. Huff, 278 Kan. 214, 217, 92 P.3d 604 (2004). In order to perfect an appeal, an appellant must file a docketi......
-
State v. Rocheleau
...The right to appeal is purely statutory and not a right contained in the United States or Kansas Constitutions. State v. Ehrlich , 286 Kan. 923, Syl. ¶ 2, 189 P.3d 491 (2008). See generally K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3601 (appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases); K.S.A. 22-3606 (procedure on ap......