TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Halstead v. Mayfield

City of Halstead, Appellee, v. William K. Mayfield, Appellant

City of Halstead v. Mayfield, 865 P.2d 222 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Kansas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 30, 1993
Docket
No. 69,313
Judges
Brazil, Elliott, Lamar
Citations
865 P.2d 22219 Kan. App. 2d 1861993 Kan. App. LEXIS 149

Opinion — Elliott

Elliott, J.:

William K. Mayfield appeals four convictions of violations of Halstead city ordinances. Prior to sentencing by the municipal court, Mayfield appealed to the district court which, after a trial de novo, found Mayfield guilty and sentenced him.

Defendant argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal because it was filed prematurely.

We agree and reverse and remand.

K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 22-3609(1) provides that a defendant may appeal from municipal court to district court any judgment finding defendant guilty of a violation of a city ordinance.

As a general proposition, an order finding a defendant guilty is not appealable until sentence is imposed or suspended pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3608.

City of Topeka v. Martin, 3 Kan. App. 2d 105 , 590 P.2d 106 (1979).

K.S.A. 22-3609a, which governs appeals from district magistrate courts, contains language essentially identical to 22-3609(1). In State v. Wilson, 15 Kan. App. 2d 308, 309-11 , 808 P.2d 434 (1991), we noted the judgment in the case was rendered when the defendant was sentenced by the magistrate.

Simply put, in appeals from district courts or magistrate courts, we have uniformly interpreted an appealable judgment to require *187 both conviction and sentence. See City of Kansas City v. Sherman, 9 Kan. App. 2d 757, 759, 687 P.2d 1383 (1984). We apply the same rationale to appeals from municipal courts.

Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant’s appeal. We emphasize, however, that defendant chose to appeal his conviction before the municipal court had an opportunity to pronounce sentence. Simply put, defendant will not be allowed to profit from his own actions by appealing prior to sentencing.

The municipal court retains jurisdiction to sentence defendant. Any problems caused by the delay are deemed waived due to defendant’s own actions. See, e.g., 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law § 561.

The judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to remand the case to municipal court for sentencing.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1998: 12005: 22008: 119982026peak 2005 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Remlinger968 P.2d 671 (Kan. 1998)
  2. City of Salina v. Amador106 P.3d 1139 (Kan. 2005)
  3. State v. Hanson124 P.3d 486 (Kan. 2005)
  4. State v. Gillen181 P.3d 564 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008)

Most recent

  1. State v. Gillen181 P.3d 564 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008)
  2. State v. Hanson124 P.3d 486 (Kan. 2005)
  3. City of Salina v. Amador106 P.3d 1139 (Kan. 2005)
  4. State v. Remlinger968 P.2d 671 (Kan. 1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Wilson, 808 P.2d 434 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991) 12
City of Topeka v. Martin, 590 P.2d 106 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979) 11
City of Kan. City v. Sherman, 687 P.2d 1383 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list