State v. Soto

Court of Appeals of Kansas

State v. Soto

928 P.2d 103, 23 Kan. App. 2d 154, 1996 Kan. App. LEXIS 148

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas

DecidedDecember 6, 1996

DocketNo. 74,155

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 928 P.2d 103 (State v. Soto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Soto, 928 P.2d 103, 23 Kan. App. 2d 154, 1996 Kan. App. LEXIS 148 (kanctapp 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Rulon, J.;

Gilberto Mirac Soto, defendant, was driving a vehicle in Topeka when he was stopped by police officers for several traffic offenses. As a result of defendant’s consent to allow the officers to search the vehicle, he was arrested and subsequently convicted of several drug-related crimes and unlawful use of a firearm, in addition to the traffic offenses. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized, based upon a claim that he did not understand the English language well enough to knowingly consent to the search of his vehicle. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

In a criminal case, final judgment occurs upon pronouncement of sentence from the bench. See State v. Bost, 21 Kan. App. 2d 560, 563-64, 903 P.2d 160 (1995). Here, the district court suspended imposition of sentence pending this appeal. The Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act does not permit suspension of imposition of sentence in felony cases. See K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4603d; K.S.A. 22-3608.

[155]*155Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because there is no final judgment from which to appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rulon, J.;

Gilberto Mirac Soto, defendant, was driving a vehicle in Topeka when he was stopped by police officers for several traffic offenses. As a result of defendant’s consent to allow the officers to search the vehicle, he was arrested and subsequently convicted of several drug-related crimes and unlawful use of a firearm, in addition to the traffic offenses. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized, based upon a claim that he did not understand the English language well enough to knowingly consent to the search of his vehicle. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

In a criminal case, final judgment occurs upon pronouncement of sentence from the bench. See State v. Bost, 21 Kan. App. 2d 560, 563-64, 903 P.2d 160 (1995). Here, the district court suspended imposition of sentence pending this appeal. The Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act does not permit suspension of imposition of sentence in felony cases. See K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4603d; K.S.A. 22-3608.

[155]*155Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because there is no final judgment from which to appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

928 P.2d 103, 23 Kan. App. 2d 154, 1996 Kan. App. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-soto-kanctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack