Opinion ID: 2636537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Application of Ortiz Exceptions to Patton

Text: In this case, Patton was informed of his right to appeal his sentence, although the district judge's misstatement of Kansas law meant he may have been misled about the issues that would be appropriate for appellate consideration. Patton had retained counsel who clearly understood that any appeal would be counsel's responsibility to perfect and otherwise pursue, and Patton expressed his desire to have an appeal filed. This situation calls for application of the third Ortiz exception. Patton should be permitted to file a late direct appeal. The undisputed testimony in the record before us is that Patton did not let the matter rest. He attempted to ensure that his lawyer would protect his appeal rights. Had the lawyer followed Patton's instructions, Patton would have been entitled to resentencing under McAdam. One final note on general applicability of the Ortiz exceptions bears mention: The rules we have outlined in this opinion shall be applied to all cases not yet final on direct appeal and those to be appealed in the future. See State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394, 414, 23 P.3d 801 (2001).