Supreme Court of Kansas· 11/10/2005

State v. Phinney

Citations

280 Kan. 394
122 P.3d 356
2005 Kan. LEXIS 773

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding remand to district court unnecessary where record on appeal factually and legally supports determination that Ortiz exception applies
noting that K.S.A. 22-3602[a] does not authorize an appeal of a conviction based upon a plea, but, “[f]ollowing a plea, a defendant may . . . challenge the sentence imposed”
discussing rules regarding and grounds for appellate jurisdiction of appeals from sentences and motions to correct illegal sentences
“The right to appeal is purely statutory, and an appellate court has a duty to question jurisdiction on its own initiative.”
where defendant argues he can only be sentenced under K.S.A. 65-4152, his sentence under K.S.A. 65-7006 was not an illegal sentence
where defendant argues he can only be sentenced under K.S.A. 65-4152, his sentence under K.S.A. 65-7006 was not an illegal sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Allegrucci, Lockett

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.