1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 119,832

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

CASEY MICHAEL BAKER,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Douglas District Court; PAULA B. MARTIN, judge. Opinion filed April 3, 2020. 

Appeal dismissed.

Randall L. Hodgkinson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant. 

Kate Duncan Butler, assistant district attorney, Charles E. Branson, district attorney, and Derek 

Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before BUSER, P.J., ATCHESON, J., and WALKER, S.J.

PER CURIAM: In this opinion we once again consider whether a convicted 

defendant's allegations of error in the district court survive after the defendant himself 

passes away during the pendency of his appeal. After applying prior caselaw, we are 

convinced that the claims made by Casey Michael Baker in this appeal are moot and 

therefore his appeal must be dismissed.

Baker was convicted in 2018 of one count of possession of methamphetamine and 

one count of possession of drug paraphernalia following a bench trial. Baker filed this 
2

appeal, alleging that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence 

discovered through a warrantless search at the time of his arrest. When Baker was 

arrested on an outstanding warrant, a Lawrence police officer searched the contents of 

both Baker's wallet and backpack, where he found the methamphetamine and drug 

paraphernalia. Baker argues the evidence should have been suppressed by the district 

court because the Lawrence Police Department's unwritten inventory policy is vague and 

improperly discretionary.

In addition, Baker argues the district court erred at a suppression hearing when it 

denied his request to reopen the evidence and allow him to testify on suppression issues, 

even though he had declined to testify at the original hearing on the motion to suppress. 

The district court ultimately denied the motion to suppress, ruling the evidence seized 

from Baker would have been inevitably discovered during an inventory search of his 

possessions at the jail. 

Baker's counsel filed his appellate brief on January 29, 2019. The State filed its 

brief on May 28, 2019. However, on September 9, 2019, the State filed a "notice of 

death" with the appellate clerk along with a published obituary indicating that Baker had 

died. No response contradicting this notice was filed by Baker's counsel. Based upon the 

State's death notice, and operating on the assumption that Baker had indeed passed away, 

we ordered additional briefing from the parties on the issue of whether Baker's death 

rendered the issues in the case moot, thus requiring Baker's appeal to be dismissed. We 

specifically directed the parties to discuss the application of State v. Hollister, 300 Kan. 

458, 329 P.3d 1220 (2014), and State v. Cada, No. 111,440, 2016 WL 367999 (Kan. 

App. 2016) (unpublished opinion), to this case. Once again, after we entered the order for 

supplemental briefing we received nothing further from Baker's counsel indicating his 

client was alive and therefore supplemental briefing was unnecessary. Instead, we 

received the supplemental briefs both from Baker's counsel and the State, including 

Baker's rather shocking argument that we should not assume he was deceased, but instead 
3

should remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing as to whether 

Baker is alive or dead. We have now reviewed the supplemental briefing we requested 

from the parties and are ready to rule.

Mootness does not affect our court's ability to hear and decide a case, because it is 

not jurisdictional. But it is a doctrine which recognizes that the role of courts is to 

determine real rather than abstract or hypothetical controversies. State v. Bennett, 288 

Kan. 86, 89, 200 P.3d 455 (2009). Kansas appellate courts "do not decide moot 

questions." State v. Montgomery, 295 Kan. 837, Syl. ¶ 2, 286 P.3d 866 (2012). Instead, a 

court "determine[s] real controversies relative to the legal rights of persons and properties 

which are actually involved in the particular case properly brought before it" and 

"adjudicate[s] those rights in such manner that the determination will be operative, final 

and conclusive." Bennett, 288 Kan. at 89.

In Hollister, our Supreme Court modified the historic doctrine that our courts were 

to consider all issues a defendant raised on appeal, even if the defendant died during the 

pendency of the appeal. State v. Burnison, 247 Kan. 19, 32, 795 P.2d 32 (1990); State v. 

Jones, 220 Kan. 136, Syl. ¶ 1, 551 P.2d 801 (1976). By applying well-accepted mootness 

rules, the Hollister court held that an appellate court may properly consider an issue on 

appeal following the death of the defendant if it presents a matter of statewide importance 

or significant public policy, it "remains a real controversy," or it would likely be 

replicated in other cases. 300 Kan. at 467. Hollister teaches that an appellate court should 

assess whether a ruling favorable to the defendant would result in the defendant's 

exoneration. Thus, a reviewing court ought to consider and decide an allegation that the 

State's evidence was insufficient for conviction, because it might result in a reversal and 

dismissal of charges against the defendant. A reversal of that sort could result in 

"clear[ing] [the defendant's] name." 300 Kan. at 467. On the other hand, an appellate 

court should be much quicker to treat fact-specific issues, i.e., those which, if the 
4

defendant was successful, would be likely to result in a reversal and remand for a new 

trial, as issues which are moot.

In his appeal, Baker challenges two aspects of the underlying proceedings in 

district court. First, he contends that the Lawrence Police Department's unwritten 

inventory policy, which was utilized by police in seizing the items of evidence from 

Baker, is insufficient as a matter of law because it was not designed to produce an 

inventory, was entirely vague and discretionary, and was not corroborated by an 

additional officer. Second, Baker contends the district court erred on two separate 

occasions by denying Baker's request to testify: once when he changed his mind and

requested to testify after the evidence was closed on his motion to suppress, and once 

again at his motion to reconsider the district court's denial of the motion to suppress.

In the initial argument of his supplemental brief, Baker's appellate counsel 

essentially contends that Hollister was incorrectly decided by our Supreme Court and 

complains that the opinion was issued "sua sponte and without briefing." Instead, counsel 

suggests that, since neither the Hollister decision nor any other provision of statutory law 

defines "exoneration," we should look to the holding in Mashaney v. Board of Indigents'

Defense Services, 302 Kan. 625, 355 P.3d 667 (2015), for guidance. In Mashaney, our 

Supreme Court considered a legal malpractice suit brought by a criminal defendant after 

his conviction had been overturned in an action under K.S.A. 60-1507 based upon 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Even though Mashaney was subject to being retried on 

his charges, our Supreme Court was called upon to adopt a rule establishing, for purposes 

of the statute of limitations, when a claim for legal malpractice actions by a defendant 

should be deemed to have accrued. This was a case of first impression in Kansas. After 

considering how several other states handled this situation, our court declared:

"[W]e are most persuaded by the opinions of the six jurisdictions that select the date of 

the court decision reversing or vacating a conviction as the point in time when 
5

exoneration occurs and the civil cause of action accrues. We are also influenced by the

fact that at least two other jurisdictions have implied that they too would adopt a rule 

consistent with the six. As these courts have observed, this rule establishes as bright a 

line as is possible. No such bright line is discernible if exoneration and accrual are 

contingent on whether the State decides to continue or revive prosecution of the 

defendant, a decision that may be made promptly or never, depending on whether there is 

pressure from a statute of limitations. No such bright line is discernible if exoneration and 

accrual are dependent on whether a particular generation of prosecutors are willing to be 

forthcoming about their plans.

"After careful consideration of the competing authorities from other states we 

hold that a Kansas criminal defendant is 'exonerated' for purposes of accrual of his or her 

civil legal malpractice claim against counsel on the date that a court grants relief from 

the conviction on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. That relief may come as 

the result of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion or some other procedural mechanism in the district 

court or in one of the appellate courts." (Emphasis added.) Mashaney, 302 Kan. at 637-

38.

Baker's counsel contends the Mashaney holding, that reversal of a conviction 

automatically equates to exoneration in malpractice actions, should also be the standard 

in criminal cases. In other words, Baker believes that any issue a defendant raises on 

appeal which might be potential reversible error should be heard and decided by the 

appellate courts, even after he or she dies while the appeal is pending.

In response, the State notes that the language of Mashaney was carefully limited to 

only "civil legal malpractice claim[s]." They also argue that, lacking a statutory or case 

law definition of "exonerate" in a criminal context, we should utilize the typical meaning 

of the word in Black's Law Dictionary as "free from responsibility" or "clear of all 

blame." Black's Law Dictionary 721 (11th ed. 2019).

We agree with the State's position for two reasons. First, in reading Mashaney, we 

note the Supreme Court was careful to make sure that its holding was restricted to 
6

exoneration for the purposes of a civil action. This care is evident from the fact the 

opinion places the word "exonerated" in quotation marks followed by the qualifying 

language "for purposes of accrual of his or her civil legal malpractice claim against 

counsel." Mashaney, 302 Kan. at 638. This language convinces us that our Supreme 

Court was well aware it was distinguishing between criminal and civil notions of 

exoneration.

Second, and more importantly, we find it implausible that the Supreme Court, 

which decided Hollister in 2014, would vitiate that decision by mere implication a year 

later in 2015, when Mashaney was released. In short, we are unconvinced by the 

arguments of Baker's counsel that Mashaney should have any impact on the issues in this 

case.

In more specific response to our request for the impact of Hollister and Cada on 

this appeal, Baker's appellate counsel presents five arguments in support of his position 

that we should proceed to consider the issues he raises in his original brief and not 

dismiss Baker's appeal as moot: (1) the State has not proved that Baker is dead and the 

matter should be remanded for fact-finding as to his mortality; (2) even if Baker is dead, 

reversal would exonerate him; (3) even if Baker is dead, this case "remains a real 

controversy"; (4) if the defendant's appeal issues are deemed moot following his death, 

and there are no conviction-related consequences, the ultimate outcome should be 

vacation of the conviction, not merely reversal and remand; and (5) even if the merits of 

the case are moot, the issues are "capable of repetition."

1. Fact-finding as to Baker's death

Defense counsel's first argument, that determination as to whether Baker is dead 

requires us to remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing, strikes us as a 

singularly frivolous and inappropriate demand. Given the lapse of time since the State's 
7

"Notice of Death" with its attached obituary, Baker's counsel either knows, or should 

know, whether his client is deceased. In our view, counsel's duty of fidelity to his client 

and diligent representation of his interests would suggest the State's notice should cause 

him to confirm this information, or notify us and opposing counsel if it is untrue. While 

counsel is correct that the matter of Baker's death is not on the list of matters which may 

be judicially noticed under K.S.A. 60-412, we believe basic principles of judicial comity 

are at work here.

If Baker is, in fact, alive, his counsel should have demonstrated good faith to his 

client by reporting this fact to us and to the State. In this instance he obviously ought to 

have informed his client that a case of mistaken identity was apparently afoot. So we 

regard counsel's request for an evidentiary hearing as nothing more than a make-work 

suggestion which unnecessarily diverts resources from the real matters at issue here and 

flies in the face of accepted notions of judicial economy. In short, if Baker is alive, there 

was no need whatsoever for supplemental briefing and arguments over mootness upon 

death would themselves become moot.

We note that a recent decision by the Second United States Circuit Court of 

Appeals described failure by counsel for a plaintiff to notify the court of their client's 

death for 11 months, even though opposing counsel repeatedly raised the issue, as 

"inexcusable." Marentette v. City of Canandaigua, New York, No. 19-205-CV, 2020 WL 

556382 (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished opinion). The Second Circuit panel dismissed the 

appeal and referred plaintiff's counsel to a disciplinary panel. Marentette, 2020 WL 

556382, at *2. Our case represents a similar situation, i.e., defense counsel's silence in the 

face of a contention by the State that his client is deceased. Remarkably, this silence was 

later coupled with defense counsel's demand for a postbriefing evidentiary hearing in the 

district court, at which the State would have the burden to prove his own client's death.

Like the Second Circuit panel in Marentette, we believe the basic principle of 

forthrightness to the tribunal and the State required appellate counsel to confirm or deny 
8

his client's death. Although in this case we are not prepared to go to the same lengths 

with counsel as in Marentette, we find it unnecessary to burden the record further at the 

request of Baker's counsel. And although the case before us is a criminal matter and 

Marentette was a civil action, we see little logical difference in the duty of counsel to 

keep an appellate court informed. In other words, if Baker is alive, we can conceive of no 

reason why his appellate counsel should not have told us so in response to the State's 

notice.

2. Whether reversal means exoneration

The second reason Baker's counsel gives for full consideration of this appeal is 

that even if Baker is dead, reversal would exonerate him. To reiterate, Baker's issues on 

appeal were the alleged wrongful seizure of items from his person pursuant to the 

Lawrence Police Department's inventory policy and the district court's denial of his 

belated request to testify at the suppression hearing. 

In support of his argument, defense counsel once again cites Mashaney to argue 

that reversal on appeal equals exoneration. We will not repeat our previous analysis, 

other than to note our view that Mashaney does not effectively overrule Hollister. But we 

are convinced that even if Baker was successful in his appeal, neither of the issues he 

raises would result in his exoneration. Despite the dissent by now-Chief Justice Marla

Luckert in Hollister calling for abatement ab initio of all charges when an appealing 

defendant dies, thus effectively resulting in exoneration, the majority of our Supreme 

Court in Hollister did not support such a blanket rule, opting instead for the three-factor 

inquiry noted above. 

A victory by Baker on his first issue on appeal, which would result in suppression 

of the evidence by application of the exclusionary rule to the items seized under the 

Lawrence Police Department inventory policy, would only have resulted in a remand for 
9

a new trial and instructions to the district court to grant the suppression motion. In Cada,

the defendant raised issues concerning: (1) the district court's limitation on crossexamination of the victim's mother, (2) an allegedly erroneous jury instruction, and (3) 

complaints about prejudicial comments by the prosecutor in closing arguments. Similarly 

to the issues in Cada, Baker's contentions concerning the need for suppression of the 

seized items here are fact-specific and do not turn on a broad policy question or an 

important and undecided point of law that can be easily defined apart from the factual 

record.

On his second issue on appeal, even if Baker succeeded in convincing us that he 

should have been permitted to testify at the suppression hearing, the result would simply 

be a remand to the district court to rehear the motion with the addition of Baker's 

testimony. If we assume Baker is deceased, such a rehearing is obviously an 

impossibility.

Thus, we conclude that the remedy to which Baker would be entitled if he were

successful with his appeal would be a reversal and remand for a new trial, which would 

be impossible given his death. But under Hollister this is different from a posthumous 

clearing of Baker's name, i.e., an exoneration.

A like result under similar circumstances was reached by a panel of our court in 

State v. Manns, No. 111,205, 2015 WL 3514005 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished 

opinion). In Manns, the defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to 

suppress the fruits of an allegedly defective search warrant. Defendant Manns died during 

the pendency of his appeal. His appeal alleged that Hollister should not apply because 

reversal on his suppression issue would be "'tantamount to exoneration.'" 2015 WL 

3514005, at *3. Although Manns was convicted by bench trial on stipulated facts 

following denial of the suppression motion, our court noted that "there is no indication 

that the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant is the only evidence against 
10

Manns." 2015 WL 3514005, at *3. After noting the defense suggestion that evidence 

seizure through the search warrant at issue was the sum of all evidence against Manns, 

the panel concluded that "aside from Manns' conjecture that no other evidence exists, 

there is nothing in this case indicating that the State could not proceed to a retrial even 

without the evidence at issue." 2015 WL 3514005, at *3. Applying Hollister, the Manns 

panel concluded that the best result the defendant could hope for was a reversal with a 

remand directing that the suppression motion be granted, which would not, however, 

"posthumously clear his name." 2015 WL 3514005, at *4. Our court ordered Manns'

appeal dismissed as moot due to his death. We believe the same result must occur in 

Baker's appeal.

3. Whether a real controversy survives Baker's death

The third reason raised by Baker's appellate counsel in suggesting the appeal not 

be deemed moot is his contention that a real controversy remains even if Baker is 

deceased, because "there are several direct and indirect effects of a criminal conviction 

that remain, even after the death of an appellant." Specifically, defense counsel notes that 

Baker was assessed a KBI laboratory fee of $400, a Senate Bill 123 assessment fee of 

$175, and a Senate Bill 123 offender reimbursement fee, not to mention any additional 

costs related to the appeal including attorney fees, transcript fees, and similar charges. 

And counsel notes that under K.S.A. 22-3801(a) those sums survive as civil judgments 

against Baker, even following his death. See State v. Douglas, 47 Kan. App. 2d 734, 739, 

279 P.3d 133 (2012).

Baker's counsel notes that neither Hollister nor Cada addressed this issue of court 

costs surviving the death of an appellant as civil judgments and complains that this was 

caused by the Hollister court raising the issue of mootness sua sponte and then ruling 

without additional briefing. He contends these decisions should have taken account of 

other potential legal consequences of a criminal conviction, such as: forfeiture of 
11

insurance or retirement benefits, changes in probate standing, immigration status of 

remaining family members, and status of any professional licensure. Counsel also argues 

that, in addition to these tangible effects, there are the intangible effects of "remain[ing] 

forever branded a convicted felon, even if that felony conviction resulted from an illegal 

search." 

In response, the State contends that the collateral consequences described by the 

defense are irrelevant to the original issues he raised on appeal, since there is no 

guarantee that his conviction, and any collateral consequences flowing from it, would be 

eradicated if he prevailed on appeal. In short, if Baker were alive, the best he could hope 

for would be a chance at a new trial with undeterminable results. Since he is dead, a 

retrial is obviously impossible, so the relief he would be entitled to if he prevailed on 

appeal is unavailing, thus rendering his issues moot.

More basically, the State argues that Hollister stands for the proposition that only 

real controversies will be considered by the court. The State cites to Creten v. Kansas 

Dept. of Revenue, 45 Kan. App. 2d 1098, Syl. ¶ 3, 257 P.3d 1250 (2011), to argue that 

courts are only "to determine real controversies relative to the legal rights of persons and 

properties which are actually involved in the particular case properly brought before 

[them] and to adjudicate those rights in such a manner that the determination will be 

operative, final and conclusive." The State warns that expanding this inquiry to delve into 

all the possible collateral consequences to Baker "risks swallowing the rule" of Creten

and similar cases. In short, the State summarizes that "[t]o hold that the existence of these 

collateral consequences maintains the controversy after death means that almost every 

criminal case fits within the second Hollister category." (Emphasis added.) 

We agree with the State's argument. Baker's appellate counsel in effect asks us to 

chart a course which essentially eliminates Hollister's mootness considerations by 

treating every case, including Baker's, as falling under the "real controversy" exception, 
12

since every case has potential collateral consequences. We view this as simply a 

backdoor way of Baker's counsel arguing to us that Hollister, and by extension Cada, 

were wrongly decided and should be overruled. But we are not aware of any indication 

that our Supreme Court intends to abandon its reasoning in Hollister, and therefore we 

are duty bound to follow its holdings. See State v. Rodriguez, 305 Kan. 1139, 1144, 390 

P.3d 903 (2017).

4. Whether mootness justifies vacating a conviction

In the fourth argument of appellant's supplemental brief, Baker's counsel takes a 

different tack. He argues alternatively that, if it is conceded that Baker is deceased and 

his issues on appeal are deemed moot, the end result should not be allowing the 

conviction to stand, but it should be entirely vacated. In short, Baker's counsel urges us to 

adopt the position taken by now-Chief Justice Luckert in her Hollister dissent, i.e., that 

death of a criminal appellant should result in abatement of the conviction ab initio. 

Once again, even if we were sympathetic to Baker's argument, the majority in 

Hollister took a different approach from Justice Luckert, and we are not free to embrace 

and apply the views of the dissent. Baker's counsel is certainly free to urge the Supreme 

Court to abandon its holding in Hollister. But, absent some indication that our Supreme 

Court intends to change its views to adopt the position advocated by Justice Luckert in 

her dissent, we are duty-bound to apply the majority's holding. Rodriguez, 305 Kan. at 

1144.

5. Whether the issues are capable of repetition

For his fifth and final contention in his supplemental brief, Baker's counsel is most 

succinct in his argument. In its entirety, his counsel alleges "[t]he issues raised in the 

instant case, whether the purported inventory search policies satisfy the Fourth 
13

Amendment, are capable of repetition and raise concerns of public importance." In a final 

sentence, counsel notes that this is Baker's second appeal on exactly the same issue, 

citing State v. Baker, 306 Kan. 585, 395 P.3d 422 (2017).

At the outset, we observe that Baker's viewpoint, taken to its logical conclusion, 

would mean that virtually any scenario is "capable of repetition." Searches and seizures 

implicating the Fourth Amendment are legion in our courts and are often intensely 

litigated. Even narrowing the focus to searches pursuant to an inventory policy garners a 

significantly large number of appellate cases. But we are convinced that our Supreme 

Court in Hollister did not intend for this "repetition" exception to mootness treatment in 

the event of a criminal appellant's death to baptize every inventory search and seizure 

case for full appellate review.

Baker's issues turn on the particular actions of Lawrence police officers in 

interpreting and applying the Lawrence Police Department's inventory policy in seizing 

items from Baker and also the district court's conclusions that the jail inventory policy 

would have led to the inevitable discovery of the contraband. These are fact-sensitive 

issues peculiar to Baker's case. The clear lesson to be drawn from the Hollister decision 

is that only issues of compelling statewide interest and wide potential application merit 

full review when a criminal appellant is deceased. Even though the Fourth Amendment 

issues raised by Baker are potentially capable of repetition in some respects, we do not 

regard them as of such unique statewide significance that the public policy interest is 

served by fully addressing them in this appeal. In short, we disagree with the very brief 

contention of Baker's appellate counsel and decline to review Baker's issues under the 

"capable of repetition" exception to mootness under Hollister.

In conclusion, similarly to the panel in Cada, in Baker's case we will enforce the 

rule that "fact-laden issues that, at best, would result in reversal and remand for a new 

trial should be discarded on appeal as moot." 2016 WL 367799, at *1. We believe neither
14

of Baker's issues turns on a broad policy question or an important and unresolved point of 

law that could be easily defined and decided without reference to the factual record in 

this case. By applying Hollister, we believe the issues here are clearly moot following 

Baker's death.

Appeal dismissed.