Title: State v. Puckett

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

227 Kan. 911 (1980)
610 P.2d 637
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
FLOYD CALVIN PUCKETT, PETROLEUM PRODUCERS, INC., A KANSAS CORPORATION, Appellees.
No. 51,622

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 10, 1980.
R. Michael Jennings, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, and Vern Miller, district attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellant.
Daniel S. Garrity, of Hylton, Garrity & Stevens, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
Defendant Floyd Calvin Puckett entered pleas of nolo contendere to ten counts of violation of the Kansas Securities Act (now K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 17-1252 et seq.). The pleas were accepted and defendant was found guilty thereon. Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his nolo contendere pleas. The motion was sustained and the case was again placed on the jury trial calendar. The State filed its notice of appeal from said order.
We must first determine whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal herein. The State contends its appeal is proper pursuant to K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 22-3602 in that the order was an arrest of judgment or, alternatively, that the appeal involves a question reserved. K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 22-3602, in relevant part, provides:
"(2) From an order arresting judgment;
"(3) Upon a question reserved by the prosecution."
Appeals by the prosecution, as a matter of right after a final judgment, are allowed only in the three situations set forth in K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 22-3602(b) and no others. State v. Crozier, 225 Kan. 120, 587 P.2d 331 (1978).
K.S.A. 22-3502 sets out the procedural requirements for an arrest of judgment as follows:
The history and effect of arrests of judgment are discussed in Crozier at 123. Clearly, the order permitting defendant to withdraw his nolo contendere pleas and setting the matter for jury trial is not an arrest of judgment pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3502.
Alternatively, the State contends the appeal herein is proper, pursuant to K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 22-3602(b), as a question reserved. The requirements for appeals on questions reserved are discussed in Crozier at 123-124. Inherent in appeals as a matter of right by the prosecution is the element that the trial court has entered final judgment in the case. An appeal on a question reserved is permitted to provide an answer which will aid in the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law. A question reserved by the State will not be entertained on appeal merely to demonstrate errors of a trial court in rulings adverse to the State (Crozier at 123). Questions reserved presuppose that the case at hand has concluded, but that an answer is necessary for proper disposition of future cases which may arise. No final judgment has been entered in the case before us.
It is clear that the appeal herein is interlocutory in character and, accordingly, is governed by K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 22-3603, which provides:
*913 The appeal herein does not come within any of the situations set forth in 22-3603 and, accordingly, an interlocutory appeal is not available to the State. Inasmuch as no statutory basis for the appeal is shown, this court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal and the appeal must be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed.
HOLMES, J., not participating.