kansas appellate practice handbook - Kansas Judicial Branch

5-16 Appellate Jurisdiction
PRACTICE NOTE: Supreme Court Rule 4.02 governs
the docketing and appellate procedure of interlocutory
appeals, which are typically expedited. When an appeal
is expedited, the appellant’s brief will be due 30 days
following the completion of all necessary transcripts.
The appellee’s brief will be due within 30 days of the
filing of the appellant’s brief. In the absence of a showing
of exceptional circumstances, no further extensions of
time for filing briefs will be granted.
C. Sentencing Guidelines Appeals
§ 5.12 Appeals Under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act
On July 1, 1993, the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act went into
effect for crimes committed on or after that date. The appeal rights of
both the prosecution and defendant from sentences imposed pursuant
to the Act are set by statute. See K.S.A. 22-3602(f); K.S.A. 21-6820
(formerly K.S.A. 21-4721); State v. Ware, 262 Kan. 180, Syl. 1, 938 P.2d
197 (1997).
For any felony committed on or after July 1, 1993, there is generally
no appellate review of a sentence within the presumptive sentence range
for the crime. K.S.A. 21-6820(c) (formerly K.S.A. 21-4721[c]). But see
State v. Barnes, 278 Kan. 121, 92 P.3d 578 (2004) (defendant was entitled
to remand for resentencing under McAdam rule; where she had been
convicted under statutes containing identical elements but providing
different penalties, defendant could only be sentenced to lesser penalty);
State v. Hodgden, 29 Kan. App. 2d 36, 38, 25 P.3d 138, rev. denied 271 Kan.
1040 (2001) (appellate court may review claim that sentencing court erred
in either including or excluding a prior conviction or juvenile adjudication
in a defendant’s criminal history); and State v. Cisneros, 42 Kan. App. 2d
376, 212 P.3d 246 (2009) (statute limiting appellate review of presumptive
sentence did not serve as jurisdictional bar to defendant’s appeal from
order revoking defendant’s probation and imposing original presumptive
term of imprisonment based on incorrect finding that trial court lacked
authority to impose a sentence shorter than the original sentence).
2013