State v. McDaniels, 57372
Decision Date | 26 July 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 57372,57372 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Jeffrey Allen McDANIELS, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The right to appeal is neither a vested nor constitutional right, but is strictly statutory in nature.
2. If a trial court has not terminated a criminal case, and it is still pending in that court, an appeal taken by the State is interlocutory in nature and must fit within the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3603.
3. Interlocutory appeals in criminal actions are to be permitted only where the pretrial order suppressing or excluding evidence places the State in a position where its ability to prosecute is substantially impaired.
4. A trial court's order denying revocation of a diversion agreement is not a pretrial order suppressing or excluding evidence within the meaning of K.S.A. 22-3603, and is not an appealable order.
5. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not appropriate where only a factual issue is involved.
6. There is no statute in this state which provides for an appeal to be taken by the State from the trial court's order denying revocation of a diversion agreement.
Jerry Wells, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., Jerry L. Harper, Dist. Atty., and Kathryn Welch, Legal Intern, were on the brief, for appellant.
Harry E. Warren, Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellee.
This is an appeal in a criminal action by the State from the trial court's order denying the State's motion to rescind its diversion agreement with the defendant. We hold this court is without jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.
On January 25, 1984, Jeffrey McDaniels (defendant-appellee), Dwight Thuro, and Thomas Green were arrested for stealing four tires and wheels from a pickup truck belonging to Turner Chevrolet in Lawrence, Kansas. At the time they were initially stopped by the police, Thuro was driving the car; Green and McDaniels were passengers. The tires were found in the trunk of the car. Thuro and McDaniels immediately confessed that they had stolen the tires and wheels from Turner Chevrolet. Green did not confess. All three were charged with felony theft (K.S.A.1984 Supp. 21-3701). Thuro eventually pled guilty to the charges.
On April 27, 1984, McDaniels was granted a twelve-month diversion, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2907. The diversion agreement provided that the charges against the defendant would be dismissed with prejudice after twelve months, if he complied with certain specific conditions. The following conditions are pertinent:
....
....
In the statement provided pursuant to the diversion agreement, and after it was made, McDaniels swore to the following:
On July 20, 1984, McDaniels was called by the State as a witness in codefendant Thomas Green's preliminary hearing. On direct examination, when asked why Green left with the car during the theft, defendant said, When asked why Green came back, defendant replied, Finally, the prosecutor queried, "So when he left, he knew that he was to come back to pick up the tires from you, is that correct?" Defendant answered, "Yeah."
On recross, Green's attorney asked, "It was your understanding though that [Green] didn't want to have anything to do with it?", to which defendant replied, "Yeah."
The prosecutor did not inquire as to what was meant by "it." Nor did the prosecutor attempt to refresh McDaniels' memory with, or impeach him with, his previous sworn statement.
Subsequently, Green's case was dismissed at the close of the preliminary hearing for lack of probable cause. The trial court's decision was affirmed by this court in State v. Green, 237 Kan. 146, 697 P.2d 1305 (1985).
The State, believing the defendant had given contradictory statements under oath, filed a motion to rescind diversion because the defendant had breached two of the conditions in the agreement. First, he had failed to testify "truthfully and willingly" against Green at the preliminary hearing. Second, by failing to testify truthfully, he had committed perjury which is a violation of the law.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion, heard arguments from both counsel, and concluded:
The State appealed from the court's order claiming it was error, and that the court should have found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant breached his contract with the State.
K.S.A. 22-2911(1) deals with a defendant's failure to fulfill the diversion agreement and provides as follows:
"If the county or district attorney finds at the termination of the diversion period or any time prior thereto that the defendant has failed to fulfill the terms of the specific diversion agreement, the county or district attorney shall inform the district court of such finding and the district court, after finding that the defendant has failed to fulfill the terms of the specific diversion agreement at a hearing thereon, shall resume the criminal proceedings on the complaint." (Emphasis added.)
The statute does not provide that the district or county attorney may seek appellate review if the court finds the defendant had not failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement.
Therefore, the threshold question in this case is whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
In In re Waterman, 212 Kan. 826, 830, 512 P.2d 466 (1973), this court stated:
The statutes authorizing appeals by the prosecution in criminal actions are found at K.S.A. 22-3602 and 22-3603.
K.S.A. 22-3602(b) provides that appeals may be taken by the prosecution as follows:
K.S.A. 22-3603 provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Dupree
...222, 226–27, 424 P.2d 571 (1967) ; State v. Montgomery, 34 Kan.App.2d 511, 515–16, 120 P.3d 1151 (2005) ; see also State v. McDaniels, 237 Kan. 767, 770, 703 P.2d 789 (1985) (“ ‘The right to an appeal is neither a vested nor constitutional right, but is strictly statutory in nature. It may ......
-
State v. Myers
...on the statutory rules of evidence, which generally concerns the exclusion of evidence from trial . See, e.g., State v. McDaniels , 237 Kan. 767, 771, 703 P.2d 789 (1985) (district court's order denying State's motion for revocation of diversion agreement was not order suppressing evidence)......
-
State v. Aldape
...from which an appeal can be taken until there has been both conviction and sentencing, or suspension of sentence. State v. McDaniels, 237 Kan. 767, 770, 703 P.2d 789 (1985); City of Kansas City v. Sherman, 9 Kan.App.2d 757, 758-59, 687 P.2d 1383 (1984), City of Topeka v. Martin, 3 Kan.App.2......
-
State v. Rios
...well established that "[t]he right to appeal is neither a vested nor constitutional right, but is strictly statutory in nature." State v. McDaniels, 237 Kan. 767, Syl. p 1, 703 P.2d 789 (1985). When the record discloses a lack of jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court to dismiss the appe......