State v. Wielgus

Court of Appeals of Kansas

State v. Wielgus

783 P.2d 1320, 14 Kan. App. 2d 145, 1989 Kan. App. LEXIS 887

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas

DecidedDecember 29, 1989

Docket62,445

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 783 P.2d 1320 (State v. Wielgus) 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. Wielgus, 783 P.2d 1320, 14 Kan. App. 2d 145, 1989 Kan. App. LEXIS 887 (kanctapp 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The issue here is whether defendant has a right to make a statement to the court during that portion of a criminal proceeding known as allocution. K.S.A. 22-3422.

The trial court refused defendant’s request to make a statement during allocution. We vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing consistent with this opinion.

The law controlling the case is found at K.S.A. 22-3424(4). That part pertinent here is this:

“Before imposing sentence the court . . . shall address the defendant personally and ask him if he wishes to make a statement on his own behalf and to present any evidence in mitigation of punishment.”

The Supreme Court of Kansas, in State v. Webb, 242 Kan. 519, 748 P.2d 875 (1988), discussed the applicable statute in a case where defendant pled guilty and appealed the sentence after his motion to modify was overruled. There was no allocution for defendant. The court ruled that allocution was an absolute statutory right. Webb, however, waived the error by failing to raise it in his motion to modify his sentence. 242 Kan. at 529. The defendant here did not file a motion to modify but, instead, *146 appealed directly from his sentence. Unlike Webb, he has not waived the error.

When the agreed-to fact of the instant case is applied to the law, we conclude that the defendant was denied his statutory right to allocution. State v. Webb; K.S.A. 22-3424(4). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for further proceedings.

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

Clark, J.:

The issue here is whether defendant has a right to make a statement to the court during that portion of a criminal proceeding known as allocution. K.S.A. 22-3422.

The trial court refused defendant’s request to make a statement during allocution. We vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing consistent with this opinion.

The law controlling the case is found at K.S.A. 22-3424(4). That part pertinent here is this:

“Before imposing sentence the court . . . shall address the defendant personally and ask him if he wishes to make a statement on his own behalf and to present any evidence in mitigation of punishment.”

The Supreme Court of Kansas, in State v. Webb, 242 Kan. 519, 748 P.2d 875 (1988), discussed the applicable statute in a case where defendant pled guilty and appealed the sentence after his motion to modify was overruled. There was no allocution for defendant. The court ruled that allocution was an absolute statutory right. Webb, however, waived the error by failing to raise it in his motion to modify his sentence. 242 Kan. at 529. The defendant here did not file a motion to modify but, instead, *146 appealed directly from his sentence. Unlike Webb, he has not waived the error.

When the agreed-to fact of the instant case is applied to the law, we conclude that the defendant was denied his statutory right to allocution. State v. Webb; K.S.A. 22-3424(4). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

783 P.2d 1320, 14 Kan. App. 2d 145, 1989 Kan. App. LEXIS 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wielgus-kanctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack