Case Name: The State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Clair Emerson Irish, Appellant
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1964-07-14
Citations: 193 Kan. 533
Docket Number: No. 43,935
Parties: The State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Clair Emerson Irish, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 193
Pages: 533–534

Head Matter:
No. 43,935
The State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Clair Emerson Irish, Appellant.
(393 P. 2d 1015)
Opinion filed July 14, 1964.
Clarence R. Sowers, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Davis S. Carson and John W. Sowers, both of Wichita, were with him on the brief for the appellant.
Keith Sanborn, County Attorney, argued the cause, and William M. Ferguson, Attorney General, Robert E. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, R. K. Hollingsworth, Deputy County Attorney, William J. Tomlinson, Deputy County Attorney, Martin E. Updegraff, Deputy County Attorney, and A. J. Focht, Deputy County Attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellee.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Price, J.:
The defendant was charged with and convicted of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree (G. S. 1949, 21-407).
Following the overruling of his motion for a new trial, defendant was sentenced to confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of not less than five years nor more than twenty-one years (G. S. 1949,21-421).
Defendant then made application to the court for a parole.
The application was denied.
Defendant subsequently filed this appeal from the order overruling his motion for a new trial and from the judgment and sentence.
The state contends that by applying for a parole from the sentence imposed defendant thereby recognized the validity of the judgment and acquiesced therein, thus precluding appellate review of his conviction.
The point is well taken.
In State v. Mooneyham, 192 Kan. 620 390 P. 2d 215 (March 7, 1964), (certiorari denied June 1, 1964, 377 U. S. 958, 12 L. ed. 2d 502, 84 S. Ct. 1640), it was held:
"When a defendant in a criminal action, following conviction and sentence in the district court and the overruling of his motion for a new trial, voluntarily makes application to the district court for a parole (to be released on probation, or for suspension of the execution of the sentence imposed), he thereby recognizes the validity of the judgment and acquiesces therein, which renders the judgment unassailable and precludes appellate review of the conviction." (syl.)
We adhere to the foregoing rule and, accordingly, this appeal must be and is hereby dismissed.