From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Topeka v. Martin

Court of Appeals of Kansas
Feb 9, 1979
3 Kan. App. 2d 105 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In City of Topeka v. Martin, 3 Kan. App. 2d 105, 590 P.2d 106 (1979), the Court of Appeals held that a sentence must be imposed or the imposition of sentence suspended in order to have a final appealable judgment.

Summary of this case from State v. Freeman
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

590 P.2d 106 (Kan.App. 1979) 3 Kan.App.2d 105 CITY OF TOPEKA, Appellee, v. James D. MARTIN, Appellant. No. 50095. Court of Appeals of Kansas February 9, 1979

       Syllabus by the Court

       In a criminal case it is Held that sentence must be imposed or the imposition of sentence suspended in order to have a final appealable judgment.

       F. G. Manzanares, Topeka, for appellant.

       Douglas S. Wright, Deputy City Atty., Topeka, for appellee.

       Before MEYER, P. J., and ABBOTT and SPENCER, JJ.

       PER CURIAM:

       This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in that there has been no sentence imposed or other disposition made which constitutes a final judgment as required by K.S.A.1978 Supp. 22-3601(A ), -3602(A ), and K.S.A. 22-3608(1).

       The defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The trial court did not impose sentence or take any other action that can be construed as an appealable order in view of the specific requirements in 22-3608(1) that sentence be imposed.

       An order finding a defendant guilty is not an appealable order and may not be appealed until the defendant is sentenced or the imposition of sentence is suspended pursuant to 22-3608. State v. Woodbury, 133 Kan. 1, 298 P. 794 (1931); Roberts v. State, 197 Kan. 687, 689, 421 P.2d 48 (1966); 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law § 525, p. 509; 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law §§ 1556, 1648, 1649, 1653.

       Appeal dismissed.

Summaries of

City of Topeka v. Martin

Court of Appeals of Kansas
Feb 9, 1979
3 Kan. App. 2d 105 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979)

In City of Topeka v. Martin, 3 Kan. App. 2d 105, 590 P.2d 106 (1979), the Court of Appeals held that a sentence must be imposed or the imposition of sentence suspended in order to have a final appealable judgment.

Summary of this case from State v. Freeman

In Martin, the court dealt with a criminal conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and determined that because a sentence had not been imposed, and no other action had been taken that could be construed as an appealable order, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 3 Kan.App.2d at 105, 590 P.2d 106.

Summary of this case from City of Lawrence v. Gilmore

In City of Topeka v. Martin, 3 Kan.App.2d 105, 590 P.2d 106 (1979), this court held that it was without jurisdiction to consider an appeal filed before sentencing because "[a]n order finding a defendant guilty is not an appealable order."

Summary of this case from State v. Bell

In City of Topeka v. Martin, 3 Kan.App.2d 105, 590 P.2d 106 (1979), we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from a conviction of driving under the influence where there had been "no sentence imposed or other disposition made which constitutes a final judgment as required by K.S.A. 1978 Supp. 22-3601(a), -3602(a), and K.S.A. 22-3608(1)."

Summary of this case from State v. Lottman
Case details for

City of Topeka v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF TOPEKA, Appellee, v. JAMES D. MARTIN, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Kansas

Date published: Feb 9, 1979

Citations

3 Kan. App. 2d 105 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979)
3 Kan. App. 2d 105
3 Kan. App. 2

Citing Cases

Whitmore v. State

590 P.2d 106 (Kan.App. 1979)3 Kan.App.2d 101Dan WHITMORE, Appellant,v.The STATE of Kansas, the DEPARTMENT OF…

State v. Wilson

       Generally, an order finding a defendant guilty is not an appealable judgment until sentence is imposed…

13 Citing Cases