Court Opinion

ID: 9545111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:06:23.639895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:06.270200
License: Public Domain

Fontron, J.,
dissenting: Although I realize that the rule laid down in State v. Mooneyham, 192 Kan. 620, 390 P. 2d 215, cert. den. 377 U. S. 958, 12 L. Ed. 2d 502, 84 S. Ct. 1640, has become the settled law of this state, I am constrained, once more, to express my disagreement. In my judgment, it is nonsense to say that the defendant in this action had acquiesced in and recognized the validity of the judgment against him by virtue of the application for probation which had been made on his behalf by counsel. I would entertain this appeal on the merits.
Price, J., joins in the foregoing dissent.