mandate rule in Kansas

2026The mandate rule prevents district-court action on remand "'when an issue has already been finally settled by earlier proceedings in a case.'" State v. Smith, 312 Kan. 876 , 884, 482 P.3d 586 (2021) (quoting State v. Soto, 310 Kan. 242 , 256, 445 P.3d 1161 [2019]).

2025State v. Smith, 312 Kan. 876 , 886, 482 P.3d 586 (2021).

2024Under the mandate rule, "a district court is obliged to effectuate the mandate and may consider only those matters essential to the implementation of the ruling of the appellate court." State v. Dumars, 37 Kan.

2024App. 2d 600, 603 , 154 P.3d 1120 (2007).

2016State v. Guder, 293 Kan. 763, 765 , 267 P.3d 751 (2012); see United States v. Shipp, 644 *585 F.3d 1126, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Collier, 263 Kan. at 636 (explaining the mandate rule is really a subspecies of the law of the case doctrine).

2016State v. Guder, 293 Kan. 763, 765 , 267 P.3d 751 (2012); see United States v. Shipp, 644 *585 F.3d 1126, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Collier, 263 Kan. at 636 (explaining the mandate rule is really a subspecies of the law of the case doctrine).

2026Under K.S.A. 60-2106(c), an appellate court's mandate and opinion "shall be controlling in the conduct of any further proceedings necessary in district court." "Where the appellate court has decided a particular issue, by explicit language or by necessary implication, the district court is foreclosed from reconsidering such an issue." Reed, 31 Kan.

2024The State further contends that Dixon's reliance on Guder is misplaced and that our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Jamerson, 309 Kan. 211, 214 , 433 P.3d 698 (2019), undermines Dixon's arguments.

2024The State further contends that Dixon's reliance on Guder is misplaced and that our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Jamerson, 309 Kan. 211, 214 , 433 P.3d 698 (2019), undermines Dixon's arguments.

2024State v. Lundberg, 310 Kan. 165 , 170, 445 P.3d 1113 (2019).

2022In State v. Cheeks, 313 Kan. 60 , 482 P.3d 1129 (2021), Cheeks argued the mandate rule compelled the district court to disregard new law in State v. LaPointe, 309 Kan. 299 , 434 P.3d 850 (2019), and apply the mandates of his prior appeals.

2021A new motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot "be used as a vehicle to 'breathe new life' into an issue previously 4 determined against [a defendant] on multiple occasions." State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342, 344-45 , 312 P.3d 361 (2013).

2021A new motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot "be used as a vehicle to 'breathe new life' into an issue previously 4 determined against [a defendant] on multiple occasions." State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342, 344-45 , 312 P.3d 361 (2013).

2021In Soto's initial appeal, our Supreme Court determined that Soto's hard 50 sentence violated the United States Supreme Court's decision in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111-16 , 133 S. Ct. 2151 , 186 L.

2021In Soto's initial appeal, our Supreme Court determined that Soto's hard 50 sentence violated the United States Supreme Court's decision in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111-16 , 133 S. Ct. 2151 , 186 L.

2020In Gannon v. State, 303 Kan. 682 , Syl. ¶ 2, 368 P.3d 1024 (2016), we explained that the mandate rule compels the district court to implement both the letter and spirit of the appellate court's opinion: "It is axiomatic that on remand for further proceedings after a decision by an appellate court, the district court must proceed in accordance with the appellate court mandate.

2020In Gannon v. State, 303 Kan. 682 , Syl. ¶ 2, 368 P.3d 1024 (2016), we explained that the mandate rule compels the district court to implement both the letter and spirit of the appellate court's opinion: "It is axiomatic that on remand for further proceedings after a decision by an appellate court, the district court must proceed in accordance with the appellate court mandate.

2019Cf. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 384 , 124 S. Ct. 786 , 157 L.

2019Cf. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 384 , 124 S. Ct. 786 , 157 L.

2019Nor can parties [confer] jurisdiction on a court by failing to object to its lack of jurisdiction.'" State v. Valladarez, 288 Kan. 671, 675 , 206 P.3d 879 (2009) (quoting State v. Elliott, 281 Kan. 583, 588 , 133 P.3d 1253 [2006]). 10 The State points to two statutes, one case from this court, and two cases from the Court of Appeals to support its argument that the mandate rule deprived Judge Kaufman of subject matter jurisdiction to decide Soto's Brady claim.

2019Nor can parties [confer] jurisdiction on a court by failing to object to its lack of jurisdiction.'" State v. Valladarez, 288 Kan. 671, 675 , 206 P.3d 879 (2009) (quoting State v. Elliott, 281 Kan. 583, 588 , 133 P.3d 1253 [2006]). 10 The State points to two statutes, one case from this court, and two cases from the Court of Appeals to support its argument that the mandate rule deprived Judge Kaufman of subject matter jurisdiction to decide Soto's Brady claim.

2019See State v. Sales, 290 Kan. 130, 135 , 224 P.3d 546 (2010) (subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time; can be raised by court's own motion); Stechschulte v. Jennings, 297 Kan. 2, 29 , 298 P.3d 1083 (2013) (courts have independent duty to determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists).

2019See State v. Sales, 290 Kan. 130, 135 , 224 P.3d 546 (2010) (subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time; can be raised by court's own motion); Stechschulte v. Jennings, 297 Kan. 2, 29 , 298 P.3d 1083 (2013) (courts have independent duty to determine if subject matter jurisdiction exists).

2019App. 2d at 781 . 17 In the end, the Edwards panel merely invoked the mandate rule to sort through the movant's claims and decide which among them were still alive in the district court; it did not label the mandate rule jurisdictional. 31 Kan.

2019Nor can parties [confer] jurisdiction on a court by failing to object to its lack of jurisdiction.'" State v. Valladarez, 288 Kan. 671, 675 , 206 P.3d 879 (2009) (quoting State v. Elliott, 281 Kan. 583, 588 , 133 P.3d 1253 [2006]). 10 The State points to two statutes, one case from this court, and two cases from the Court of Appeals to support its argument that the mandate rule deprived Judge Kaufman of subject matter jurisdiction to decide Soto's Brady claim.

2019Nor can parties [confer] jurisdiction on a court by failing to object to its lack of jurisdiction.'" State v. Valladarez, 288 Kan. 671, 675 , 206 P.3d 879 (2009) (quoting State v. Elliott, 281 Kan. 583, 588 , 133 P.3d 1253 [2006]). 10 The State points to two statutes, one case from this court, and two cases from the Court of Appeals to support its argument that the mandate rule deprived Judge Kaufman of subject matter jurisdiction to decide Soto's Brady claim.

2019Now, having addressed the State's subject matter jurisdiction challenge, which had the potential to lead to a ruling that Judge Kaufman was right for the wrong reason, see State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 , Syl. ¶ 2, 235 P.3d 1203 (2010) (if district court right for wrong reason, constitutional claim can be raised for first time on appeal), we turn to his actual reason for denying Soto a hearing on his Brady claim: untimeliness under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3501(1). 19 K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3501(1) An appeals court reviews a district judge's denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretio

2019Now, having addressed the State's subject matter jurisdiction challenge, which had the potential to lead to a ruling that Judge Kaufman was right for the wrong reason, see State v. Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 , Syl. ¶ 2, 235 P.3d 1203 (2010) (if district court right for wrong reason, constitutional claim can be raised for first time on appeal), we turn to his actual reason for denying Soto a hearing on his Brady claim: untimeliness under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3501(1). 19 K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3501(1) An appeals court reviews a district judge's denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretio

2016Liberty Interest In support of Kleypas' liberty interest argument, he cites Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343 , 100 S. Ct. 2227 , 65 L.

2016Liberty Interest In support of Kleypas' liberty interest argument, he cites Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343 , 100 S. Ct. 2227 , 65 L.

2007Our first inquiry is relevance. “ ‘Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.’ ” State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 693 , 124 P.3d 493 (2005) (quoting State v. Carter, 278 Kan. 74, 77 , 91 P.3d 1162 [2004]).

2007Our first inquiry is relevance. “ ‘Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.’ ” State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 693 , 124 P.3d 493 (2005) (quoting State v. Carter, 278 Kan. 74, 77 , 91 P.3d 1162 [2004]).

2007See Collier, 263 Kan. at 635 (discussing K.S.A. 60-2106 and the “mandate rule”); Duffitt & Ramsey v. Crozier, Judge, 30 Kan. 150 , Syl. ¶ 1, 1 Pac. 69 (1883).

2007Our first inquiry is relevance. “ ‘Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.’ ” State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 693 , 124 P.3d 493 (2005) (quoting State v. Carter, 278 Kan. 74, 77 , 91 P.3d 1162 [2004]).

2007Our first inquiry is relevance. “ ‘Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.’ ” State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 693 , 124 P.3d 493 (2005) (quoting State v. Carter, 278 Kan. 74, 77 , 91 P.3d 1162 [2004]).