State v. Woodling, 79510
| Decision Date | 17 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 79510,79510 |
| Citation | 264 Kan. 684,957 P.2d 398 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Roy D. WOODLING, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
and dismissing the case on the grounds that a prior plea agreement barred prosecution is not an arrest of judgment. A decision that a prior plea agreement bars a subsequent prosecution is not the equivalent of a decision that the court lacks jurisdiction over the case.
2. An appellate court obtains jurisdiction over the rulings identified in the notice of appeal. Grounds for jurisdiction not identified in a notice of appeal may not be considered by the court.
3. Questions reserved by the State in a criminal prosecution, under K.S.A. 22-3602(b), will not be entertained on appeal merely to demonstrate whether error has been committed by the trial court. Generally, this court has accepted appeals on questions reserved by the State where the appeals involve issues of statewide interest important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law and the interpretation of statutes. We have uniformly declined to entertain questions reserved in which the resolution of the question would not provide helpful precedent.
4. The issues sought to be raised in the present appeal as questions reserved are fact-specific and not of statewide interest.
Leo T. Gensweider, County Attorney, argued the cause, and Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General, was with him on the briefs, for appellant.
Joseph P. Leon, Assistant Appellate Defender, argued the cause, and Jessica R. Kunen, Chief Appellate Defender, was with him on the brief, for appellee.
This is an attempted appeal by the State of Kansas from the trial court's order allowing Roy D. Woodling to withdraw his plea, setting aside his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, and dismissing the case. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Woodling was arrested for numerous traffic offenses on December 29, 1996, and evidence seized from his vehicle was sent to the KBI for analysis. Woodling was charged with six traffic offenses plus possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Woodling entered an unwritten plea agreement in which he pled no contest to five of the traffic charges, and the other charges were dismissed. Woodling believed no additional charges stemming from the December 29 arrest would be filed.
Subsequently, the State filed a new case against Woodling, charging one count of possession of methamphetamine after obtaining results from the KBI finding trace amounts of the substance inside the drug paraphernalia. Woodling advised his newly appointed attorney that he believed the prior plea agreement had taken care of all charges resulting from the December 29 arrest. Woodling's attorney consulted with the county attorney, then informed Woodling that the prosecution was not barred. Subsequently, Woodling entered a plea of guilty and was convicted of the charge.
Prior to sentencing, Woodling filed a motion to withdraw his plea or set aside the conviction and to dismiss the case. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion, ruling the case was barred by the prior plea agreement, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The State first filed a notice that it was asserting a right to reserve a question for possible appeal as to whether it was barred as a matter of law from filing the criminal charges in this case. The State then filed a timely notice of appeal to this court, citing K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(2) and (3) and stating the appeal was from an order arresting judgment and/or upon a question reserved by the prosecution. The notice of appeal did not set forth the questions reserved, but the docketing statement did designate the two issues the State has raised in this appeal: (1) Did Woodling's guilty plea constitute a waiver of his right to subsequently request the trial court to set aside his conviction? and (2) Did the prior plea agreement bar the State from filing additional charges?
Woodling responds by arguing that we should decline jurisdiction of this appeal. He claims that the trial court's order was not an arrest of judgment and that there is no question of sufficient statewide importance to warrant our attention on a question reserved.
K.S.A. 22-3602(b) provides:
"Appeals to the supreme court may be taken by the prosecution from cases before a district judge as a matter of right in the following cases, and no others:
(1) From an order dismissing a complaint, information or indictment;
(2) from an order arresting judgment; [or]
(3) upon a question reserved by the prosecution."
The procedural requirements for an order arresting judgment are described in K.S.A. 22-3502:
Woodling relies on State v. Puckett, 227 Kan. 911, 912, 610 P.2d 637 (1980), to argue that the trial court's order was not an arrest of judgment. In Puckett, the trial court permitted a defendant to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere, and the case was set for trial. The State appealed, alleging the court had jurisdiction to review the order as either an arrest of judgment or a question reserved. We declared: "Clearly, the order permitting defendant to withdraw his nolo contendere pleas and setting the matter for jury trial is not an arrest of judgment pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3502." 227 Kan. at 912, 610 P.2d 637. As no final judgment had been entered in the case, we also held the appeal was interlocutory in character, such that the State could not appeal upon a question reserved, and dismissed the appeal.
The State responds by contending the order was an arrest of judgment because the trial court essentially ruled it was without jurisdiction due to the fact the State was prohibited from filing the case as a result of the prior plea agreement. The trial court, however, did not hold that it lacked jurisdiction. Additionally, the State provides no authority for the proposition that a court's decision that a prior plea agreement bars a subsequent prosecution is the equivalent of a decision that the court lacks jurisdiction over the case.
Furthermore, in State v. Unruh, 259 Kan. 822, 915 P.2d 744 (1996), we rejected the State's attempt to perfect an appeal on the grounds that the trial court had issued an order arresting judgment. The trial court had vacated Unruh's plea, deciding that the evidence was not sufficient to support the crime charged and that the matter was jurisdictional. Finding the indictment had charged a crime over which the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Berreth
...(Emphasis added.) 262 Kan. at 463, 939 P.2d 896. We described one rationale for the State's choices in State v. Woodling, 264 Kan. 684, 687, 957 P.2d 398 (1998), where we summarized Muck as “recognizing that the State can elect to appeal under different subsections in order to acquire diffe......
-
State v. Crow, 79,287
...statewide interest important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law and the interpretation of statutes. State v. Woodling, 264 Kan. 684, Syl. p 3, 957 P.2d 398 The issue raised here appears to be of statewide interest. It is likely to be considered in a large number o......
-
State v. Verge
...the Kansas Supreme Court and provides no statutory authority for the appeal taken by the prosecution in this case. As we said in State v. Woodling, 264 Kan. 684, Syl. ¶ 2, 957 P.2d 398 (1998): "Grounds for jurisdiction not identified in a notice of appeal may not be considered by the In Sta......
-
State v. Skolaut, No. 97,401.
...issue of statewide interest that is important to the correct and uniform administration of criminal justice.... "In State v. Woodling, 264 Kan. 684, 687, 957 P.2d 398 (1998), we `"Questions reserved by the State in a criminal prosecution, under K.S.A. 22-3602(b) [Furse], will not be enterta......