22-3605.
Decision and disposition of case on appeal; stay of mandate.
(a) Any appellate court may reverse, affirm or modify the judgment or order appealed from, or may order a new trial in the district court. In either case the cause must be remanded to the district court with proper instructions, together with the decision of the appellate court, within the time and in the manner to be prescribed by rule of the supreme court.
(b) (1) In appeals from criminal actions and in other post-conviction actions arising from criminal prosecutions, the issuance of the mandate from the appellate court shall be automatically stayed when:
(A) A party files a notice with the appellate court that it intends to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States supreme court; and
(B) the time has not expired for filing such a petition under applicable United States supreme court rules.
(2) If the mandate from the appellate court has already been issued when a party files its notice, the mandate from the appellate court shall be withdrawn and stayed.
(3) The stay shall be lifted when:
(A) If a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States supreme court is filed, the court denies such petition or issues such court's final order following granting such petition; or
(B) if no petition for writ of certiorari to the United States supreme court is filed, the time expires for filing such petition under applicable United States supreme court rules.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3605; L. 1975, ch. 178, § 24; L. 2014, ch. 139, § 6; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case:
State v. Alonzo, 297 P.3d 300 (Kan. 2013).
State v. Alonzo, 297 P.3d 300 (Kan. 2013).
“In addition, although Alonzo was still on probation when he was resentenced on November 20,2008—over 3 years after the original date of sentencing on July 14, 2005—this is only because the district court had extended die probation term in a manner contrary to K.S.A.…”
State v. Harmon, 865 P.2d 1011 (Kan. 1993).
“” K.S.A. 22-3605. In setting forth the responsibilities of this court with reference to a hard 40 sentence, the law provides that the Supreme Court of Kansas shall consider the question of sentence on appeal as well as any errors asserted in the review on appeal and shall be…”
Quinn v. State, 522 P.3d 282 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “And they rely on the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3605(b) (automatically staying a mandate when a notice of intent to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is filed).”
State v. Anderson (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
“The State's only argument against the Boettger decision applying to Anderson's case is that the decision is not yet final because our Supreme Court stayed the issuance of its mandate to allow the State to petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to K.S.A. 2019 Supp.…”
Seacat v. State (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3605(b). But Seacat did not take this action and our Supreme Court filed its mandate.”
State v. R. Carr (Kan. 2026).
“" K.S.A. 22-3605(a). When an appellate court decision becomes final, the court must transmit to the district-court clerk its mandate, which contains "such directions as are appropriate under the decision.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3605(a) — 1 case
State v. R. Carr (Kan. 2026).
“" K.S.A. 22-3605(a). When an appellate court decision becomes final, the court must transmit to the district-court clerk its mandate, which contains "such directions as are appropriate under the decision.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3605(b) — 2 cases
Quinn v. State, 522 P.3d 282 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“And they rely on the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3605(b) (automatically staying a mandate when a notice of intent to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is filed).”
Seacat v. State (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3605(b). But Seacat did not take this action and our Supreme Court filed its mandate.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3605(b)(1) — 1 case
State v. Anderson (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
“The State's only argument against the Boettger decision applying to Anderson's case is that the decision is not yet final because our Supreme Court stayed the issuance of its mandate to allow the State to petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to K.S.A. 2019 Supp.…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3605(b)(1)(A) — 1 case
Quinn v. State, 522 P.3d 282 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“And they rely on the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3605(b) (automatically staying a mandate when a notice of intent to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is filed).”
— K.S.A. § 22-3605(b)(3) — 1 case
Quinn v. State, 522 P.3d 282 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“And they rely on the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3605(b) (automatically staying a mandate when a notice of intent to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is filed).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.