State v. Woodling

21 Citing cases

  1. State v. Berreth

    273 P.3d 752 (Kan. 2012)   Cited 72 times
    Noting that "an appellate court's answer to a State's question reserved has no effect on the criminal defendant in the underlying case" and analogizing a question reserved to "a purely academic question in the case in which it arrives on appeal"

    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 different rights upon a successful appeal.” (Emphasis added.)

  2. In re Appeal of Prof. Engineering Consultants

    281 Kan. 633 (Kan. 2006)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, PEC did not claim the credit in the pleading upon which BOTA's jurisdiction is based. See generally State v. Woodling, 264 Kan. 684, Syl. ¶ 2, 957 P.2d 398 (1998) ("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."). As the Court of Appeals stated in In re Application of Park Comm'rs for Ad Valorem Tax Exemption, 14 Kan. App. 2d 777, 799 P.2d 505 (1990), when considering whether BOTA had jurisdiction to revoke a city's exemption from ad valorem taxes for stables on certain park property, where the city's application for exemption only listed a residence, and the residence and the stables were not so intertwined as to constitute one subject of dispute: "No statute, expressly or impliedly, gives BOTA power to investigate property which is not the subject of a dispute before it."

  3. State v. Verge

    272 Kan. 501 (Kan. 2001)   Cited 55 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion even though 96.7 percent of respondents recalled the case and 64 percent believed defendant was either probably or definitely guilty; court stated: “In the past, we have not relied on statistics but, rather, we have focused on the difficulties encountered in impaneling a competent and unbiased jury.”

    Jurisdictional deficiency appears on the face of the notice of appeal, as K.S.A. 22-3601(b)(1) only expresses what appeals are to be taken to 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 court." In State v. Kerby, 259 Kan. 104, 106, 910 P.2d 836 (1996), the notice of appeal by the State was filed pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3603 (interlocutory appeals), and we dismissed the appeal, even though it was later contended that what was intended was to appeal a question reserved under K.S.A. 22-3602.

  4. State v. McDonald

    272 Kan. 222 (Kan. 2001)   Cited 12 times

    Although McDonald's argument that he must be provided an attorney in any proceeding where the term of his probation is extended can be answered, the more difficult question is whether we have jurisdiction to consider what is in effect an attempt to collaterally attack two unappealed from orders. See State v. Delacruz, 258 Kan. 129, 137-39, 899 P.2d 1042 (1995) (collateral attack prohibited in part but allowed in part where the precise issue now appealed was not presented to the trial court); State v. Gardner, 264 Kan. 95, 106, 955 P.2d 1199 (1998) (collateral attack prohibited where the notice of appeal did not identify the rulings appealed from as being from prior proceedings, separate from the revocation hearing); State v. Woodling, 264 Kan. 684, Syl. ¶ 2, 957 P.2d 398 (1998) (collateral attack prohibited where we said: "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."). We always have the obligation to question jurisdiction on our own motion, McDonald v. Hannigan, 262 Kan. 156, Syl. ¶ 1, 936 P.2d 262 (1997), and if the record discloses a lack of jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed.

  5. State v. Crow

    266 Kan. 690 (Kan. 1999)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that Kansas statute, which allowed admission of laboratory report into evidence, did not violate defendant's right to confront witnesses where statute required that a certificate (which would subject its preparer to the same perjury penalties as live trial testimony) be signed under oath by the party making the analysis

    We generally only accept appeals on questions reserved which involve issues of 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. ¶ 3, 957 P.2d 398 (1998). The issue raised here appears to be of statewide interest.

  6. State v. Roberson

    No. 121,307 (Kan. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2020)

    errors which are adverse to the State or because a decision would be helpful precedent. See State v. Tremble, 279 Kan. 391, 393, 109 P.3d 1188 (2005); State v. Woodling, 264 Kan. 684, 687, 957 P.2d 398 (1998); City of Wichita v. Basgall, 257 Kan. 631, 633, 894 P.2d 876 (1995). Instead, cases are reviewed only '"'where the appeals involve questions of statewide interest important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law and the interpretation of statutes.'"

  7. State v. Coppage

    34 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 5 times

    The Kansas Supreme Court has emphasized that questions reserved are not entertained simply to demonstrate trial court errors which are adverse to the State or because a decision would be helpful precedent. See State v. Tremble, 279 Kan. 391, 393, 109 P.3d 1188 (2005); State v. Woodling, 264 Kan. 684, 687, 957 P.2d 398 (1998); City of Wichita v. Basgall, 257 Kan. 631, 633, 894 P.2d 876 (1995). Instead, cases are reviewed only " ' "where the appeals involve questions of statewide interest important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law and the

  8. State v. Pottoroff

    32 Kan. App. 2d 1161 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 6 times
    Reviewing Kansas Statute 21-4710 providing "[p]rior convictions of any crime shall not be counted in determining the criminal history category if they enhance the severity level or applicable penalties . . . or are elements of the present crime of conviction."

    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. State v. Woodling, 264 Kan. 684, Syl. ¶ 3, 957 P.2d 398 (1998). An appeal of a question reserved is proper only when the legal ruling adverse to the prosecution is of statewide importance to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law. City of Liberal v. Witherspoon, 28 Kan.App.2d 649, Syl. ¶ ¶ 1, 2, 3, 20 P.3d 727 (2001).

  9. Patton v. United States

    281 U.S. 276 (1930)   Cited 952 times
    Holding that trial by jury means a jury consisting of twelve and rendering a unanimous verdict “is not open to question”

    The validity of such statutes has been expressly adjudicated in a great number of States, and in every instance the constitutionality of such a statute has been upheld. Connelly v. State, 60 Ala. 89; Ireland v. State, 11 Ala. App. 155; Baader v. State, 201 Ala. 76; State v. Shearer, 27 Ariz. 311; State v. Worden, 46 Conn. 349; State v. Rankin, 102 Conn. 46; Logan v. State, 86 Ga. 266; Moore v. State, 124 Ga. 30; Brewster v. People, 183 Ill. 143; People v. Fisher, 303 Ill. 430; Murphy v. State, 97 Ind. 579; In re Clancy, 112 Kan. 247; League v. State, 36 Md. 257; Commonwealth v. Rowe, 257 Mass. 172; Ward v. People, 30 Mich. 116; People v. Steele, 94 Mich. 437; People v. Jones, 220 Mich. 633; People v. Henderson, 246 Mich. 481; State v. Woodling, 53 Minn. 142; State v. Graves, 161 Minn. 422; State v. Moody, 24 Mo. 560; State v. Bockstruck, 136 Mo. 335; Edwards v. State, 45 N.J.L. 419; Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475; Dailey v. State, 4 Ohio St. 57; Dillingham v. State, 5 Ohio St. 280; Billigheimer v. State, 32 Ohio St. 435; Hoffman v. State, 98 Ohio St. 137; Lee v. State, 86 Tex.Crim. 203; Armstrong v. State, 98 Tex.Crim. 335; State v. Griggs, 34 W. Va. 78; State v. Denoon, 34 W. Va. 139; In re Staff, 63 Wis. 285. In civil cases, the only constitutional provision is that of the Seventh Amendment providing that "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," but it is provided by a statute which is applicable both to civil and criminal cases that "the trial of issues of fact . . . shall be by jury."

  10. State v. Skolaut

    286 Kan. 219 (Kan. 2008)   Cited 258 times
    Holding "revocation may occur after probation ends as long as a warrant, petition, or show cause order has been filed prior to or within 30 days after the expiration of the probationary term"

    Such an appeal is permitted to allow the prosecution to obtain review of a trial court's adverse ruling on a legal 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 held: `"Questions reserved by the State in a criminal prosecution, under K.S.A. 22-3602(b) [Furse], will not be entertained on appeal merely to demonstrate whether error has been committed by the trial court.