Title: State v. Sykes

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 113,903 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
EDWARD SYKES, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
 
1. 
 
An appellate court reviews decisions of mootness de novo. 
 
2.  
A case is moot when a court determines it is clearly and convincingly shown that 
the actual controversy has ended, that the only judgment that could be entered would be 
ineffectual for any purpose, and that it would not have an impact on any of the parties' 
rights. 
 
3. 
 
The completion of a sentence does not necessarily render a claim moot.  
 
 
 
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished order filed March 29, 2016. 
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; JOSEPH BRIBIESCA, judge.  Opinion filed June 19, 2020.  Judgment 
of the Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal is affirmed. 
 
2 
 
 
 
Joanna Labastida and Kasper Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, were on the briefs 
for appellant.  
 
Boyd K. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, 
attorney general, were on the brief for the appellee. 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
ROSEN, J.:  Edward Sykes sought to appeal the denial of his motion to correct an 
illegal sentence based on the calculation of his criminal history, and the Court of Appeals 
granted the State's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot when Sykes did not challenge 
that motion. We affirm.  
 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
 
Sykes was charged with and convicted of one count of selling cocaine within 
1,000 feet of a school. On June 16, 1997, the district court sentenced him to a mid-range 
term of 78 months, with a postrelease supervision term of 36 months. The sentence was 
based on a criminal history classification of A. On November 13, 2014, Sykes filed a 
motion to correct an illegal sentence under State v. Dickey, 50 Kan. App. 468, 329 P.3d 
1230 (2014), aff'd 301 Kan. 1018, 350 P.3d 1054 (2015). On November 24, 2014, the 
district court denied the motion on the grounds that review of the Court of Appeals 
opinion in Dickey was pending in this court and therefore was not binding as stare 
decisis. Sykes took a timely appeal.  
 
On March 7, 2016, the State filed a motion seeking involuntary dismissal of the 
appeal on the grounds that Sykes had completed his sentence and the appeal was moot. In 
3 
 
 
 
the absence of a response from the appellant, the Court of Appeals granted the State's 
motion and dismissed the appeal on March 29, 2016.  
 
Sykes filed a petition for review of the dismissal order. Counsel asserted two 
grounds for deciding that the appeal was not moot: that a hypothetical future sentencing 
court might take judicial notice of his criminal history score, and a successful appeal 
might preserve a legal malpractice claim against his trial counsel. We granted the 
petition.  
 
ANALYSIS 
  
Sykes avers that the panel dismissed his case as moot because he completed his 
prison sentence. He asks us to hold that his case is not moot and remand his case for 
resentencing.  
 
We review decisions of mootness de novo. State v. Roat, 311 Kan.__, __P.3d__ 
(No. 113,531, this day decided). "A case is moot when a court determines that 'it is 
clearly and convincingly shown the actual controversy has ended, the only judgment that 
could be entered would be ineffectual for any purpose, and it would not impact any of the 
parties' rights.'" Roat, No.113,531, slip op. at 6 (quoting State v. Montgomery, 295 Kan. 
837, 840-41, 286 P.3d 866 [2012]). The completion of a sentence does not necessarily 
render a claim moot. Roat, No. 113,531, slip op. at 16. 
 
To the extent the panel considered Sykes' claim moot based solely on the 
completion of his sentence, we disagree. As we explain in Roat, courts must avoid 
blanket application of such a broad rule.  
 
4 
 
 
 
But we affirm the panel's dismissal because Sykes failed to challenge the State's 
motion for involuntary dismissal of his case as moot. In State v. Mayes, 311 Kan.__, 
P.3d__, __ P.3d __  (No. 115,006, this day decided), slip op. at 4, we note a court's 
obligation to fully analyze whether a dismissal will affect a party's asserted rights before 
dismissing a claim as moot, but we acknowledge that a party must identify these rights 
for the court. In the absence of such an assertion here, the panel did not err in dismissing 
the claim. 
 
Sykes urges us to consider whether his case is moot. We decline his invitation. 
Sykes did not preserve this issue below and fails to explain why we should review it for 
the first time. State v. Owens, 310 Kan. 865, 877, 451 P.3d 467 (2019) (arguments not 
raised in the Court of Appeals "generally cannot be raised for the first time in a petition 
for review").  
 
CONCLUSION 
 
The Court of Appeals is affirmed.  
 
JOHNSON, J., not participating.1 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
1REPORTER'S NOTE:  Justice Lee A. Johnson heard oral arguments 
but did not participate in the final decision in case No. 113,903. Justice 
Johnson retired effective September 6, 2019.