State v. Phillips, 309 Kan. 475

437 P.3d 961 (2019) · Supreme Court of Kansas · March 29, 2019 · No. No. 115,431

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court held that a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under K.S.A. 22-3501 must be filed within two years after the final judgment. Where the appellate decision and mandate fully determine the issues and require no further proceedings, the judgment becomes final when the mandate issues. The court affirmed the denial of Michael E. Phillips's motion as untimely.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the Court
Nuss, C.J.
Jurisdiction
Kansas
Decision date
March 29, 2019
Docket number
No. 115,431
Procedural posture
Phillips appealed the Sedgwick District Court's denial of his K.S.A. 22-3501 motion for a new trial as untimely.
Standard of review
Whether a motion for a new trial is timely under K.S.A. 22-3501(1) is a question of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo or with unlimited review. A district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial is otherwise reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published Kansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Michael E. Phillips v. State of Kansas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedurestatutory interpretationfinal judgment rulepost-conviction relief

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedurepost-conviction reliefstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. When does the final judgment occur for purposes of the two-year deadline for a K.S.A. 22-3501 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence?
  2. Was Phillips's March 6, 2015 motion for a new trial timely?

Holdings

  1. When an appellate decision and mandate fully determine the issues presented below and no further proceedings are necessary, the judgment becomes final when the appellate mandate is issued.
  2. Phillips's March 6, 2015 motion for a new trial was untimely because it was filed more than two years after the Supreme Court's February 11, 2013 mandate.

Key quotations

If an appellate court's decision and mandate is fully determinative of the issues presented in the proceedings below, they become a part of the judgment of the case without further order of the trial court. (syllabus ¶ 2)
A district court's judgment becomes final the date this court issues its mandate, except in cases where remand instructions are given and further proceedings are necessary. (at 5)

Factual background

A jury convicted Michael E. Phillips of first-degree felony murder, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm. He received a life sentence with a mandatory minimum of 20 years and additional consecutive and concurrent terms. On direct appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and imprisonment terms but vacated lifetime postrelease supervision because the sentencing court lacked authority to impose it with an off-grid indeterminate life sentence. After the Supreme Court issued its mandate, Phillips filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence more than two years later.

Procedural history

A jury convicted Phillips of first-degree felony murder, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and most of the sentence in a prior appeal, vacating only the order of lifetime postrelease supervision, and issued its mandate on February 11, 2013. Phillips filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence on March 6, 2015; the district court denied it as outside the two-year statutory period, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…