State v. Harris
Decision Date | 17 April 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 117,362,117,362 |
Citation | 461 P.3d 48 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Bryan Richard HARRIS, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Rick A. Kittel, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause, and was on the brief for appellant.
Sherri L. Becker, county attorney, argued the cause, and Gerald R. Kuckelman, former county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
Bryan Richard Harris was convicted of possession of marijuana, a felony. On appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in a published opinion. Harris petitioned this court for review, asserting ineffective waiver of his right to trial by jury and three other issues. Because we hold that Harris' waiver of jury trial was legally insufficient, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the district court and remand for further proceedings. We decline to address the remaining issues.
On November 7, 2015, Atchison police officers arrested Harris on an outstanding misdemeanor warrant and transported him to the Atchison County Jail in a police cruiser. A restraint chair was needed for Harris, who had become agitated. At some point, the jacket Harris had been wearing slipped down over his hands, which were handcuffed behind his back.
At the jail's intake, someone removed Harris' handcuffs and jacket and placed his jacket on the intake bench. An officer checked Harris' pockets and patted him down. Harris was placed in the restraint chair and was "rolled" into a holding cell, where he calmed down. Approximately 20 minutes later, an officer located Harris' jacket, which had been moved from the intake bench to the filing cabinet behind the booking desk. The officer searched the jacket and discovered two cigarillos in one of its pockets. The odor of the cigarillos led the officer to believe that they contained marijuana, which a subsequent field test confirmed.
The State charged Harris in two separate cases—one for the misdemeanor charges that led to the warrant (case No. 2015CR275), and the other for the alleged felonies that arose on November 7 (case No. 2015CR276). The only case on appeal is the felony. Both cases were before the district court on February 3, 2016, in a single hearing relevant to this court's inquiry—the misdemeanor case for trial to the court, and the felony case for preliminary hearing. During the course of the combination hearing, the defendant's right to trial by jury did not come up. Harris was convicted as charged for the misdemeanors.
On March 28, 2016, Harris came before the court for sentencing in case No. 2015CR275 and for arraignment in case No. 2015CR276. Harris, now represented by counsel, Andrew Werring, entered a not guilty plea and asked for a trial setting. The following exchange then took place:
Before the bench trial on May 25, 2016, Harris' replacement counsel, Michael Highland, expressed concern that Harris did not want him to assist with the case. In the discussion that followed, the district court attempted to advise Harris—who apparently wanted to present his own opening and closing arguments, and leave the remainder of the case to his counsel—of his options, "because you don't understand what your rights are as a defendant." As the district court characterized it, Harris was presented with "three options": "Mr. Harris, your options are, as a defendant, you have the right to enter a plea, you have the right to request a jury, and you have the right to testify." The district court went on to state that "[i]n a criminal case, the defendant has the right to decide specific aspects of the case, what plea to enter, whether to waive a jury trial, and whether to testify," but that, "[b]eyond these matters, defense counsel is responsible for strategical and tactical decisions like preparation, scheduling, and the type of defense." Finally, the district court informed Harris that "[Y]ou have the choice, to have an attorney, not to have an attorney, or to have standby counsel."
In response, Harris stated:
The trial then proceeded, and the court found Harris guilty of marijuana possession.
Harris subsequently filed a pro se motion to vacate or set aside, which the district court heard and denied on July 6, 2016. Harris then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court rejected prior to sentencing Harris on August 8.
Harris timely appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, raising four issues. The first issue asserted that Harris did not properly waive his right to jury trial.
After the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, Harris petitioned this court for review on the same four issues.
Because we hold that our ruling on Harris' first issue requires the reversal of his conviction, we need not reach his remaining three issues.
Harris claims the district court failed to advise him of his right to a jury trial or to obtain a proper waiver of that right. In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals wrote:
Harris raised this issue for the first time before the Court of Appeals. Generally, the court does not address even constitutional issues for the first time on appeal. State v. Gonzalez , No. 119,492, ––– Kan. ––––, ––––, 460 P.3d 348, 2020 WL 1485675, at *9 (Kan. 2020). Within its discretion, however, the appellate court may do so if the party trying to raise a new issue shows a recognized exception to the general rule. Those exceptions are:
" ‘(1) [T]he newly asserted claim involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case; (2) the claim’s consideration is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court’s judgment may be upheld on appeal despite its reliance on the wrong ground or reason for its decision.’ " State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321, 338, 446 P.3d 472 (2...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Keys
...exception to the preservation rule should be applied. State v. Dunn , 304 Kan. 773, 819, 375 P.3d 332 (2016) ; see State v. Harris , 311 Kan. 371, 375, 461 P.3d 48 (2020) (setting forth exceptions to the preservation rule an appellate court may invoke in its discretion).While Keys does not ......
-
State v. Bodine
...grounds for reversal asserted for first time on appeal are not properly before appellate court for review); State v. Harris , 311 Kan. 371, 375, 461 P.3d 48 (2020) (listing exceptions to general rule that new legal theory may not be raised for first time on appeal). Bodine asserts that (1) ......
-
State v. Vonachen
...decide whether they can be considered now. Courts generally do not address constitutional issues for the first time on appeal. State v. Harris , 311 Kan. 371, Syl. ¶ 1, 461 P.3d 48 (2020) ("Generally, an appellate court does not address issues for the first time on appeal, but there are lim......
-
State v. Gutierrez-Fuentes
...may be upheld on appeal despite its reliance on the wrong ground or reason for its decision.’ [Citations omitted.]" State v. Harris , 311 Kan. 371, 375, 461 P.3d 48 (2020). The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right. Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 515, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d ......