Opinion ID: 2570125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ortiz and Willingham

Text: In Ortiz, this court held that an untimely appeal will be allowed only in those cases where an indigent defendant was either: (1) not informed of his or her appellate rights; (2) not furnished with an attorney to perfect an appeal; or (3) furnished with an attorney for that purpose who failed to perfect and complete an appeal. 230 Kan. at 735-36, 640 P.2d 1255. If any of these narrow exceptional circumstances are met, a court must permit an appeal out of time. See State v. Willingham, 266 Kan. 98, 99-102, 967 P.2d 1079 (1998). Scoville asserted the first Ortiz exception applied because he had not been informed of his appellate rights. The first Ortiz exception i.e., a defendant is not informed of his or her appellate rightswas more thoroughly discussed in Willingham, 266 Kan. at 99-102, 967 P.2d 1079. In that case, this court reviewed a claim by the defendant that he should be allowed to file an appeal out of time because the sentencing judge had failed to notify him of his right to appeal under K.S.A. 22-3424(f). That statute provides: After imposing sentence in a case which has gone to trial on a plea of not guilty, the court shall advise the defendant of the defendant's right to appeal and of the right of a person who is unable to pay the costs of an appeal to appeal in forma pauperis.  Willingham noted that `[t]he purpose of K.S.A. 22-3424[f] logically is the same as that of the federal rule [then Fed. R.Crim. Proc. 32(a)(2)]: [T]o insure that all defendants who might wish to appeal are fully aware of their appeal rights. (Emphasis added.) United States v. Benthien, 434 F.2d 1031, 1032 (1st Cir.1970).' 266 Kan. at 101, 967 P.2d 1079 (quoting State v. Mitchell, 231 Kan. 144, 147, 642 P.2d 981 [1982], overruled on other grounds State v. Nioce, 239 Kan. 127, 716 P.2d 585 [1986]). The court specifically held that a full awareness of appeal rights necessarily includes the knowledge that there is a time frame within which these rights must be exercised. Willingham, 266 Kan. 98, Syl. ¶ 3, 967 P.2d 1079. The Willingham court determined there was no evidence the defendant was advised of his right to appeal at sentencing, either by the sentencing judge or trial counsel, and counsel had failed to obtain a written waiver of appeal under Kansas Administrative Regulation (K.A.R.) 105-3-9(a)(3) (duty of counsel to file timely notice of appeal unless obtains waiver of right to appeal signed by defendant). Accordingly, this court held that Ortiz applied, and the defendant was allowed to file a direct appeal out of time. 266 Kan. at 100-02, 967 P.2d 1079.