State v. Powell, 47424
| Decision Date | 02 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47424,47424 |
| Citation | 215 Kan. 624,527 P.2d 1063 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Harrell E. POWELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. While a defendant need not demand a trial within the statutory time, he cannot complain of delays granted at his request or caused by his own conduct.
2. Where, on the day set for trial, a defendant requests a psychiatric examination to support a proposed insanity defense, the request is tantamount to a motion for a continuance until the results of the examination are available.
3. Where a defendant is brought to trial within ninety days of arraignment, not counting those days during which the case was continued at his request, he is not entitled to be discharged under K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 22-3402(1).
Rodney H. Busey, Arvin, Arvin, Busey & Thomas, Chartered, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Clifford L. Bertholf, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause, and Vern Miller, Atty. Gen., and Keith Sanborn, Dist. Atty., were with him on the brief for appellee.
FOTH, Commissioner:
The defendant, Harrell E. Powell, was convicted of passing worthless checks. In this appeal his sole contention is that he was not brought to trial within the statutory ninety days and his motion for discharge should therefore have been sustained.
Since he was never free on bond, the applicable statute is K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 22-3402(1), which requires the discharge of an incarcerated defendant after 90 days from arraignment 'unless the delay shall happen as a result of the application or fault of the defendant.' Defendant waived arraignment on June 12, 1973, and was brought to trial on September 24, 1973, just 103 days later. The issue is whether as many as 13 of those days are chargeable to the defendant as being the result of his 'application or fault.'
The trial court, in denying defendant's motion for discharge, found that 23 days' delay should be charged against the defendant, based on the following circumstances:
Defendant's case was set for trial on June 25. On that day, when defendant's case was called on the docket by the assignment judge, defense counsel responded, 'Your Honor, we have a motion on file for a psychiatric examination.'
There was an initial misunderstanding of defendant's motion, which resulted in his being sent to Larned state hospital briefly. In short order, however, it was determined that competency to stand trial was not in issue, but a proposed insanity defense was. Accordingly, on June 2nd an agreed order was entered calling for defendant's examination by a Wichita psychiatrist on July 5. It directed, among other things, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomas, 98,123.
...motion for a competency evaluation stops the clock against the State. See McGee, 280 Kan. at 891–93, 126 P.3d 1110; State v. Powell, 215 Kan. 624, 625, 527 P.2d 1063 (1974). At the June 2 competency hearing, the district court found Thomas competent to stand trial. According to the journal ......
-
State v. Fink
...to stand trial, the state is not charged with such delay in determining whether the accused was afforded a speedy trial. (State v. Powell, 215 Kan. 624, 527 P.2d 1063; and see State v. Stanley, 179 Kan. 613, 296 P.2d 1088, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 851, 77 S.Ct. 73, 1 L.Ed.2d 62; United States......
-
Langworthy v. State
...date on which the psychiatrist's report is received are properly chargeable against the defendant. Although Powell (State v. Powell, 215 Kan. 624, 527 P.2d 1063 (1974)) involved a psychiatric examination in connection with a proposed insanity defense and not an examination to determine comp......
-
State v. Brown, 47638
...from relief by the provisions of the statute itself. (See, also, State v. Pendergrass, 215 Kan. 806, 528 P.2d 1190; State v. Powell, 215 Kan. 624, 527 P.2d 1063; and State v. Welch, 212 Kan. 180, 509 P.2d Defendant next contends that the admission into evidence, over his objection, of the s......