Case Title: State v. Hooks

Citation: 256 Kan. 869

Docket Number: 70,440

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1995-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
256 Kan. 869 (1995)
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
v.
RODNEY J. HOOKS, Appellant.
No. 70,440

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 27, 1995.
Michael H. Dunn, of Wichita, was on the brief for appellant.
Peter G. Collins, assistant district attorney, Nola Foulston, district attorney, and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
Rodney J. Hooks appeals from the district court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his motion seeking sentence modification.
Defendant was convicted of 15 felonies, of which five were class A and four were class B. These convictions were affirmed in State v. Hooks, 251 Kan. 755, 840 P.2d 483 (1992). Prior to filing his notice of appeal, defendant had sought and obtained sentence modification. No issue relative to sentencing was included in the first appeal. The mandate in the first appeal was filed in the district court on December 3, 1992. On March 9, 1993, defendant filed his second motion to modify (seeking modification of the previously modified sentence). The motion was denied on the ground the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion. Defendant appeals from that determination.
The pertinent statute is K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4603(4), which provides:
Interpretation of this same statute was recently before us in State v. Smith, 254 Kan. 16, 864 P.2d 1208 (1993). Defendant Smith had been found guilty of multiple felonies on his plea of nolo contendere and was sentenced thereon. His motion for sentence modification was denied. He appealed from the denial of his motion for modification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court. State v. Smith, No. 65,813, unpublished opinion filed June 14, 1991. The mandate issued on November 6, 1991. Defendant filed a second motion to modify, which the district court denied on the basis it lacked jurisdiction. Defendant appealed therefrom, contending that K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4603(4)(b) applied and that, accordingly, the district court had jurisdiction to modify his sentence for a 120-day period following the issuance of the mandate in his first appeal. In rejecting this contention, we held:
In the case before us, Hooks took a direct appeal from his conviction, and that appeal was determined adversely to him. The jurisdictional window provided by 21-4603(4)(b) opened upon receipt of the mandate on that first appeal. The facts that the sentence had been modified prior to the direct appeal on the conviction and that the modified sentence could have been included as an issue in the first appeal are not statutory exceptions to the grant of jurisdiction contained in 21-4603(4)(b). If the legislature had intended to limit the application of the statute to previously unmodified sentences, it could have done so. We conclude the district court erred in holding it lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant's motion seeking sentence modification.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.