![]() FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The basic facts of the crime are straightforward: After Queen was kicked out of a Eudora bar, he shot and killed a bouncer, Bo Hobson. On review, we affirm the Court of Appeals holding that no exceptions extended the statutory speedy trial period and, consistent with the Legislature's directive, Queen must be discharged from liability on the charges. 20-3018(b) (petition for review of Court of Appeals decision). This court's jurisdiction is proper under K.S.A. The State timely petitioned for review, which this court granted. The Court of Appeals commented: "The remedy is strong medicine, since it undoes any conviction obtained in a trial 2 impermissibly held after the statutory deadline and precludes any further prosecution of the defendant on those charges." State v. The panel also noted that the speedy trial statute unambiguously directs courts to discharge from liability any person not timely brought to trial. Queen appealed, and a Court of Appeals panel reversed the district court, holding that no statutory exceptions applied to extend the speedy trial deadline. The district court judge denied Queen's request, relying on provisions in the speedy trial statute that allow a judge to extend the 150-day period under certain conditions. ![]() He relied only on his statutory speedy trial right. In seeking discharge from liability, Queen did not then, nor has he ever, asserted that the trial setting violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Queen seeks discharge from charges of murder and attempted murder because the State did not bring him to trial until 153 days after his arraignment. The opinion of the court was delivered by LUCKERT, C.J.: The Kansas speedy trial statute requires a court to "discharge from further liability to be tried for the crime charged" if that person was held in jail solely on the charged crime and was not brought to trial within 150 days after such person's arraignment on the charge. Branson, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee. Kate Duncan Butler, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Charles E. ![]() Peter Maharry, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant. Judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions. ![]() Judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the district court is affirmed. Appeal from Douglas District Court PEGGY C. 1 Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed July 2, 2020. The State failed to raise the issue in the district court and questions of fact remain unresolved. 22-3402 and resulted from the application or fault of the defendant. Under the facts here, the State failed to preserve for appellate review whether a delay kept the State from bringing a defendant to trial within the time required by K.S.A. Under the facts here, a defendant did not waive speedy trial rights or cause a delay that tolled the running of the speedy trial deadline when defense counsel merely acknowledged availability on the date proposed by the court for trial. 22-3402(e)(4) does not apply to extend the speedy trial deadline. 22-3402, the judge did not cite the need to do so because of a crowded docket, and no party requested nor did the court order a continuance, the crowded docket exception of K.S.A. Under the facts here, where a district court judge mistakenly set a trial beyond the speedy trial time set in K.S.A. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |