57 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 14 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pattongreen2 sentences2025"The third Ortiz exception allows a late appeal if a defendant was furnished an attorney for the purpose of an appeal but the attorney failed to perform." State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200, 223 , 195 P.3d 753 (2008). 2025"The third Ortiz exception allows a late appeal if a defendant was furnished an attorney for the purpose of an appeal but the attorney failed to perform." State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200, 223 , 195 P.3d 753 (2008). | 10 | 17 |
State v. Phinneygreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394 , Syl. ¶ 7, 122 P.3d 356 (2005) (holding remand to district court unnecessary where record on appeal factually and legally supports determination that Ortiz exception applies). 2019See, e.g., State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394 , Syl. ¶ 7, 122 P.3d 356 (2005) (holding remand to district court unnecessary where record on appeal factually and legally supports determination that Ortiz exception applies). | 8 | 17 |
State v. Ortizgreen2 sentences2020She contends we "should apply the fundamental fairness exception . . . recognized in In re T.M.C." because she "was not directly informed of her right to appeal because she was never given direct notice of the Memorandum Opinion that terminated her parental rights." Under the first Ortiz exception, a criminal defendant may be permitted to appeal out of time if he or she is not advised of the right to appeal. 230 Kan. at 736 . 2020He focused on the third Ortiz exception, which permits an untimely appeal when an indigent defendant's attorney failed to perfect and complete an appeal. 230 Kan. at 735-36 . | 3 | 8 |
Arthur Lee Norris v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Floridagreen2 sentences2016Cole’s threshold requirement that a defendant must establish that he or she had not “let the matter rest” as a condition precedent to establishing an Ortiz exception was apparently crafted from the following language in Ortiz: “ ‘A defendant properly informed of his appellate rights may not “let the matter rest,” Worts v. Dutton, 395 F.2d 341, 344 (5th Cir. 1968), and then claim that he did not waive his right to appeal.’ ” Ortiz, 230 Kan. at 736 (quoting Norris v. Wainwright, 588 F.2d 130, 137 [5th Cir. 1979]). 2016Cole’s threshold requirement that a defendant must establish that he or she had not “let the matter rest” as a condition precedent to establishing an Ortiz exception was apparently crafted from the following language in Ortiz: “ ‘A defendant properly informed of his appellate rights may not “let the matter rest,” Worts v. Dutton, 395 F.2d 341, 344 (5th Cir. 1968), and then claim that he did not waive his right to appeal.’ ” Ortiz, 230 Kan. at 736 (quoting Norris v. Wainwright, 588 F.2d 130, 137 [5th Cir. 1979]). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Willinghamgreen2 sentences2008First, he suggests that a stated desire to appeal is not germane to the application of Ortiz , specifically arguing that according to State v. Willingham, 266 Kan. 98, 101 , 967 P.2d 1079 (1998), “a defendant’s failure to state a desire to appeal from such a sentence is not sufficient evidence of his desire to waive such a right.” As Patton clarifies, the State need not prove an affirmative waiver of the right to appeal, but rather under the third step of the first Ortiz exception analysis the defendant must prove that he or she wanted to appeal the sentence. 2008First, he suggests that a stated desire to appeal is not germane to the application of Ortiz , specifically arguing that according to State v. Willingham, 266 Kan. 98, 101 , 967 P.2d 1079 (1998), “a defendant’s failure to state a desire to appeal from such a sentence is not sufficient evidence of his desire to waive such a right.” As Patton clarifies, the State need not prove an affirmative waiver of the right to appeal, but rather under the third step of the first Ortiz exception analysis the defendant must prove that he or she wanted to appeal the sentence. | 2 | 7 |
State v. Redmongreen2 sentences2020However, both are distinguishable. 8 In Redmon, the Kansas Supreme Court found the third Ortiz exception had been met when it determined that a letter from trial counsel stating Redmon may appeal his sentence but he needed to contact the Appellate Public Defender's Office was in direct contradiction of the duty of trial counsel under K.A.R. 105-3-9(a)(3). 255 Kan. at 223 . 2007Accordingly, we determined that Ortiz applied, and defendant was allowed to file a direct appeal out of time. 266 Kan. at 100-02 ; see also State v. Redmon, 255 Kan. 220, 222-23 , 873 P.2d 1350 (1994) (defendant who entered guilty *747 plea still had the right to appeal his sentence out of time when the circumstances fit an Ortiz exception). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Northerngreen2 sentences2025In State v. Northern, 304 Kan. 860, 865 , 375 P.3d 363 (2016), Northern argued that counsel's failure to get a signed waiver form under K.A.R. 105-3-9 "would be better evidence of whether the third Ortiz exception applies." 304 Kan. at 865. 2025In State v. Northern, 304 Kan. 860, 865 , 375 P.3d 363 (2016), Northern argued that counsel's failure to get a signed waiver form under K.A.R. 105-3-9 "would be better evidence of whether the third Ortiz exception applies." 304 Kan. at 865. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2021Accord State v. Smith, 303 Kan. 673, 679 , 366 P.3d 226 (2016) (affirming the district court's rejection of the State's argument in an Ortiz hearing when the State failed to carry its evidentiary burden of proof). 2021Accord State v. Smith, 303 Kan. 673, 679 , 366 P.3d 226 (2016) (affirming the district court's rejection of the State's argument in an Ortiz hearing when the State failed to carry its evidentiary burden of proof). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Shellygreen2 sentences2016It is significant that the panel did not address Shelly’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the umbrella of tire third Ortiz exception, other than noting: “Shelly’s motion made no claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against Arnold.” 49 Kan. 2016Because Shelly was advised of his right to appeal his sentence within 14 days and was told that an attorney would be appointed for the appeal if he could not afford one, the panel held the first Ortiz exception was inapplicable. 49 Kan. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2022"Here, Smith asserts that he falls under the third Ortiz exception . . . . [Citations omitted.]" Smith I, 304 Kan. at 919-20 . 2022"Here, Smith asserts that he falls under the third Ortiz exception . . . . [Citations omitted.]" Smith I, 304 Kan. at 919-20 . | 1 | 7 |
State v. Hemphillgreen2 sentences2021And in State v. Hemphill, 286 Kan. 583, 591 , 186 P.3d 777 (2008), the court held that the first Ortiz exception did not apply to an untimely motion to withdraw a plea because there was no statutory obligation for the district court to inform the defendant of his right to appeal the denial of his motion. 2021And in State v. Hemphill, 286 Kan. 583, 591 , 186 P.3d 777 (2008), the court held that the first Ortiz exception did not apply to an untimely motion to withdraw a plea because there was no statutory obligation for the district court to inform the defendant of his right to appeal the denial of his motion. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Gillgreen2 sentences2024We review the district court's factual findings from an Ortiz hearing for substantial competent evidence and apply a de novo standard of review to "the ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit within an Ortiz exception." State v. Gill, 287 Kan. 289, 293 , 196 P.3d 369 (2008). 2024We review the district court's factual findings from an Ortiz hearing for substantial competent evidence and apply a de novo standard of review to "the ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit within an Ortiz exception." State v. Gill, 287 Kan. 289, 293 , 196 P.3d 369 (2008). | 1 | 5 |
In re Arkell (green2 sentences2020Accordingly, to satisfy the third Ortiz exception, "the defendant must establish that: (1) he or she told counsel to appeal, but the attorney failed to file or perfect the appeal; and, (2) he or she would have timely appealed, but for counsel's failure." State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916 , Syl. ¶ 4, 377 P.3d 414 (2016). 2020Accordingly, to satisfy the third Ortiz exception, "the defendant must establish that: (1) he or she told counsel to appeal, but the attorney failed to file or perfect the appeal; and, (2) he or she would have timely appealed, but for counsel's failure." State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916 , Syl. ¶ 4, 377 P.3d 414 (2016). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Harpgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Harp, 283 Kan. 740, 747-48 , 156 P.3d 1268 (2007) (absence of waiver circumstantial evidence defendant had not been informed of right to appeal). 2020See State v. Harp, 283 Kan. 740, 747-48 , 156 P.3d 1268 (2007) (absence of waiver circumstantial evidence defendant had not been informed of right to appeal). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Abbottgreen2 sentences2008App. 2d 706 , 71 P.3d 1173 (2003) (noting the out-of-time appeal had been retained pursuant to Ortiz); State v. Ypma, No. 89,447, unpublished opinion filed December 19, 2003 (noting untimely appeal had been retained pursuant to Ortiz); State v. Vest, No. 88,314, unpublished opinion filed August 29,2003, rev. denied 276 Kan. 973 (2003) (noting appeal was before Court of Appeals pursuant to Ortiz); State v. Hunter, No. 89,703, unpublished opinion filed August 22, 2003 (noting appeal retained based on Ortiz exception); State v. Patton, 26 Kan. 2008See State v. Abbott, 31 Kan. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Perrygreen2 sentences2025Cf. State v. Perry, 303 Kan. 1053, 1061 , 370 P.3d 754 (2016) ("His failure to advise Perry of the current state of the law so that she could make an informed decision about whether to take an appeal is sufficiently equivalent to a failure to file a direct appeal that Perry . . . qualifies for application of the third Ortiz exception."). 2025Cf. State v. Perry, 303 Kan. 1053, 1061 , 370 P.3d 754 (2016) ("His failure to advise Perry of the current state of the law so that she could make an informed decision about whether to take an appeal is sufficiently equivalent to a failure to file a direct appeal that Perry . . . qualifies for application of the third Ortiz exception."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2024State v. Nelson, 291 Kan. 475, 488 , 243 P.3d 343 (2010) ("[A]ppellate courts do not make factual findings, even if the record is sufficient for the court to reach the factual issues. 2024State v. Nelson, 291 Kan. 475, 488 , 243 P.3d 343 (2010) ("[A]ppellate courts do not make factual findings, even if the record is sufficient for the court to reach the factual issues. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re I.A.green | 1 | 1 |
| Edgar C. Worts v. A. L. Dutton, Warden, Georgia State Prisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Timsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robertson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wilkins v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Scovillegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Van Cleavegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gillgreen2 sentences2024We review the district court's factual findings from an Ortiz hearing for substantial competent evidence and apply a de novo standard of review to "the ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit within an Ortiz exception." State v. Gill, 287 Kan. 289, 293 , 196 P.3d 369 (2008). 2024We review the district court's factual findings from an Ortiz hearing for substantial competent evidence and apply a de novo standard of review to "the ultimate legal determination of whether those facts fit within an Ortiz exception." State v. Gill, 287 Kan. 289, 293 , 196 P.3d 369 (2008). | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roe v. Flores-Ortega
green
2 sentences2020The standard of performance that is to be applied to measure the adequacy of an attorney's performance under the third Ortiz exception is found in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 , 120 S. Ct. 1029 , 145 L. 2020The standard of performance that is to be applied to measure the adequacy of an attorney's performance under the third Ortiz exception is found in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 , 120 S. Ct. 1029 , 145 L. | 10 | 2007–2020 |
State v. Shelly
green
2 sentences2025"The standards of review governing the third Ortiz exception are the same as those governing the first." State v. Shelly, 303 Kan. 1027, 1041 , 371 P.3d 820 (2016). 2025"The standards of review governing the third Ortiz exception are the same as those governing the first." State v. Shelly, 303 Kan. 1027, 1041 , 371 P.3d 820 (2016). | 6 | 2016–2025 |
Guillory v. State
green
2 sentences2020In addition to the first Ortiz exception: "The fundamental fairness principle underlying all three exceptions recognized in Ortiz and its progeny is based on the facts that the defendant's failure to timely appeal was the result of being deprived of a right to which he or she was entitled by law: the statutory right to be advised of the right to appeal; the statutory right to be provided an attorney to file an appeal; or the right to have the appointed attorney perform effectively in perfecting the appeal." Guillory v. State, 285 Kan. 223, 228 , 170 P.3d 403 (2007). 2020In addition to the first Ortiz exception: "The fundamental fairness principle underlying all three exceptions recognized in Ortiz and its progeny is based on the facts that the defendant's failure to timely appeal was the result of being deprived of a right to which he or she was entitled by law: the statutory right to be advised of the right to appeal; the statutory right to be provided an attorney to file an appeal; or the right to have the appointed attorney perform effectively in perfecting the appeal." Guillory v. State, 285 Kan. 223, 228 , 170 P.3d 403 (2007). | 3 | 2011–2020 |
Albright v. State
green
2 sentences2016We do not agree, however, that it is the third Ortiz exception that allows an appellate court to accept jurisdiction." Albright, 292 Kan. at 207 . 2016We do not agree, however, that it is the third Ortiz exception that allows an appellate court to accept jurisdiction.” Albright, 292 Kan. at 207 . | 3 | 2014–2016 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2022Besides recapitulating his journal entry and first Ortiz exception claims, he now sets forth the substantive basis for his appeal: that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment, as interpreted by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S. Ct. 2455 , 183 L. 2022Besides recapitulating his journal entry and first Ortiz exception claims, he now sets forth the substantive basis for his appeal: that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment, as interpreted by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S. Ct. 2455 , 183 L. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Montgomery v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 407 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 , 136 S. Ct. 718 , 193 L. 2022Ed. 2d 407 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 , 136 S. Ct. 718 , 193 L. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Montgomery v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 407 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 , 136 S. Ct. 718 , 193 L. 2022Ed. 2d 407 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 , 136 S. Ct. 718 , 193 L. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2016Defense counsel then asked if Arnold was familiar with State v. McAdam, 277 Kan. 136 , 83 P.3d 161 (2004), and the court again sustained the State’s objection to the question as outside the parameters of the Ortiz hearing. *1058 During argument at the close of the Ortiz hearing, defense counsel argued that the third Ortiz exception involved an attorneys duty to be “effective in perfecting appeal for his client,” relying on our discussion of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2016Defense counsel then asked if Arnold was familiar with State v. McAdam, 277 Kan. 136 , 83 P.3d 161 (2004), and the court again sustained the State’s objection to the question as outside the parameters of the Ortiz hearing. *1058 During argument at the close of the Ortiz hearing, defense counsel argued that the third Ortiz exception involved an attorneys duty to be “effective in perfecting appeal for his client,” relying on our discussion of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. McAdam
green
2 sentences2016No timely appeal was filed; State v. McAdam, 277 Kan. 136, 145-47 , 83 P.3d 161 (2004) (applying identical offense sentencing doctrine to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine conviction), was subsequently decided; various motions were filed; and Patton ultimately had an Ortiz hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion alleging counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely appeal challenging the severity level of his attempted manufacture crime. 2016No timely appeal was filed; State v. McAdam, 277 Kan. 136, 145-47 , 83 P.3d 161 (2004) (applying identical offense sentencing doctrine to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine conviction), was subsequently decided; various motions were filed; and Patton ultimately had an Ortiz hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion alleging counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely appeal challenging the severity level of his attempted manufacture crime. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Dugan
neutral
2 sentences2008App. 2d 667, 674-75 , 155 P.3d 1202 (2007) (first exception of Ortiz satisfied when sentencing court fails to fully inform of right to appointed counsel on appeal; State cannot cross-appeal from ruling at Ortiz hearing on ground of fundamental fairness); State v. Romero, No. 96,215, unpublished Kansas Supreme Court opinion filed December 7, 2007 (entertaining merits of appeal after affirming district court’s ruling that Ortiz permitted late appeal); State v. Darnell, No. 97,042, unpublished opinion filed November 16, 2007 (affirming denial of out-of-time appeal *211 when no Ortiz exception app 2008App. 2d 667, 674-75 , 155 P.3d 1202 (2007) (first exception of Ortiz satisfied when sentencing court fails to fully inform of right to appointed counsel on appeal; State cannot cross-appeal from ruling at Ortiz hearing on ground of fundamental fairness); State v. Romero, No. 96,215, unpublished Kansas Supreme Court opinion filed December 7, 2007 (entertaining merits of appeal after affirming district court’s ruling that Ortiz permitted late appeal); State v. Darnell, No. 97,042, unpublished opinion filed November 16, 2007 (affirming denial of out-of-time appeal *211 when no Ortiz exception app | 2 | 2007–2008 |
State v. Muriithi
green
2 sentences2007Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 479 ; Muriithi, 273 Kan. at 962 . 2007Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 479 ; Muriithi, 273 Kan. at 962 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Bates
neutral
2 sentences2024"Substantial competent evidence is defined as such 3 legal and relevant evidence as a reasonable person might regard as sufficient to support a conclusion. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Bates, 316 Kan. 174 , 183, 513 P.3d 483 (2022). 2024"Substantial competent evidence is defined as such 3 legal and relevant evidence as a reasonable person might regard as sufficient to support a conclusion. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Bates, 316 Kan. 174 , 183, 513 P.3d 483 (2022). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re I.A.
green
1 sentence2022However, the Kansas Supreme Court recently rejected this argument in In re I.A., 313 Kan. 803 , 491 P.3d 1241 (2021). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Dumars green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Huff green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re TMC green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Owens neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Winston v. Kansas Dept. of SRS green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In Re the Care & Treatment of Emerson green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Allen neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Cole neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Taylor v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Rice green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Brown v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Johnson neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Barnes green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Unruh green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. McGraw green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Medina green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Rios green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Mitchell green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Bryant v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Casner v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Flynn green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Patton green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Bost green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Shortey green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Parker green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Kargus v. State green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| City of Dodge City v. Hadley green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.