State v. Nelson

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Phelps

    266 Kan. 185 (Kan. 1998)   Cited 18 times
    Applying ‘the reasonable person test’ to aggravated intimidation of a witness

    "[t]here is no statutory authority for the State to appeal from the dismissal in a criminal case of some of the counts of a multiple-count complaint, information, or indictment while the case remains pending before the district court on all or a portion of the remaining counts which have not been dismissed and which have not been finally resolved." State v. Nelson, 263 Kan. 115, Syl. ¶ 3, 946 P.2d 1355 (1997). The record before us is not as clear as it should be, particularly because no journal entry has been filed concerning the misdemeanor charge for disorderly conduct.

  2. State v. Gayden

    281 Kan. 290 (Kan. 2006)   Cited 28 times
    Holding claim that cumulative punishments for six convictions violated Double Jeopardy Clause of Fifth Amendment to United States Constitution cannot be properly raised in motion to correct illegal sentence

    Relief should have been denied because the claim does not fit within the definition of an illegal sentence. It does not appear this issue was raised before the district court. As it is a jurisdictional question, the matter may be raised at any time, sua sponte. See State v. Nelson, 263 Kan. 115, 116, 946 P.2d 1355 (1997). We affirm the district court as it reached the correct result.

  3. Rivera v. Cimarron Dairy

    267 Kan. 865 (Kan. 1999)   Cited 14 times

    An objection based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, whether it be for the first time on appeal or even upon the appellate court's own motion. State v. Nelson, 263 Kan. 115, 116, 946 P.2d 1355 (1997). An appellate court's jurisdiction to review the Board's order is set out in K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 44-556(a), which provides:

  4. Copeland v. Robinson

    25 Kan. App. 2d 717 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    In Copeland v. Robinson, 25 Kan.App.2d 717, 970 P.2d 69 (1998), where personal liability for unpaid taxes was statutorily linked to control or responsibility for preparing tax returns and payment of taxes, the court held that a person charged with such personal liability had a due process right to an opportunity to prove that no such control or responsibility existed.

    Furthermore, an objection based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, whether it be for the first time on appeal or even upon the appellate court's own motion. State v. Nelson, 263 Kan. 115, 116, 946 P.2d 1355 (1997). We conclude KDR's stipulation that no administrative remedy is available to Copeland does not foreclose the issue of subject matter jurisdiction from consideration by this court.