Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court held that Sean Key’s guilty or no contest plea barred appellate review of his challenge to the felony classification of his DUI conviction because he had not moved to withdraw the plea. However, the plea did not deprive the appellate courts of jurisdiction to review whether a prior misdemeanor DUI conviction was improperly used to enhance his sentence. The court reversed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal and remanded for consideration of the sentencing challenge.
Holdings
- A guilty or no-contest plea, absent an unsuccessful motion to withdraw the plea, eliminates appellate jurisdiction over a challenge to the felony conviction or classification of the offense.
- A guilty or no-contest plea does not eliminate appellate jurisdiction to review the sentence imposed in the current felony case, including whether an allegedly invalid prior misdemeanor DUI was properly used to enhance that sentence.
- Key's sentencing appeal was not governed by K.S.A. 22-3602(f) because his sentence was imposed under the self-contained habitual-criminal provisions of K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 8-1567, not under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act's presumptive grid system.
- A successful appellate challenge to the use of an invalid prior misdemeanor DUI may result in vacation of the enhanced felony sentence and resentencing as misdemeanor DUI, but it does not erase the prior misdemeanor conviction; vacatur of that conviction must be sought under K.S.A. 60-1507.
Questions Presented
- Whether a guilty or no-contest plea barred appellate jurisdiction over Key's challenge to the felony classification of his current DUI conviction.
- Whether appellate jurisdiction remained over Key's challenge to the use of the prior misdemeanor DUI conviction to enhance the sentence in the current felony DUI case.
- Whether the appeal was governed by the sentencing-appeal provisions of K.S.A. 22-3602(f).
- What procedural steps are generally necessary to preserve challenges to prior DUI convictions used as classification or sentencing factors.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (18)
- State v. Garza, 295 Kan. 326, 286 P.3d 554 (2012)(followed)
- State v. Burnett, 293 Kan. 840, 270 P.3d 1115 (2012)(followed)
- State v. Seems, 277 Kan. 303, 84 P.3d 606 (2004), affirming State v. Seems, 31 Kan. App. 2d 794, 74 P.3d 55 (2003)(followed)
- State v. Chamberlain, 280 Kan. 241, 120 P.3d 319 (2005)(followed)
- State v. Helgeson, 235 Kan. 534, 680 P.2d 910 (1984)(followed in part)
- State v. Masterson, 261 Kan. 158, 929 P.2d 127 (1996)(followed)
- State v. Loudermilk, 221 Kan. 157, 557 P.2d 1229 (1976)(followed)
- State v. Moody, 282 Kan. 181, 144 P.3d 612 (2006)(followed)
- State v. Larson, 265 Kan. 160, 958 P.2d 1154 (1998)(followed)
- State v. Elliott, 281 Kan. 583, 133 P.3d 1253 (2006)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…