Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Diederich

Court of Appeals of Kansas

May 23, 2014

State of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Jeffrey Diederich, Appellant

Appeal from Reno District Court; Trish Rose, judge.

SYLLABUS

BY THE COURT

1. After a prisoner gives notice under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, K.S.A. 22-4301 et seq., that he or she requests the trial of outstanding charges, the State must begin the trial of those charges within 180 days unless the parties stipulate to a continuance, the court grants additional time for good cause in open court with the defendant or the defendant's attorney present, or the court grants additional time on notice to the defendant's attorney and an opportunity for that attorney to be heard.

2. Where the State takes no action to extend the 180-day time limit of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act before it expires, the district court loses subject-matter jurisdiction over the charges, and those charges must be dismissed with prejudice to their refiling.

Adam D. Stolte, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Keith E. Schroeder, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before Schroeder, P.J., Leben, J., and Hebert, S.J.

OPINION

Page 410

Leben, J.

Jeffrey Diederich appeals his conviction on several charges based on his claim that the State violated his speedy-trial rights under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, K.S.A. 22-4301 et seq. Under that act, once a defendant gives notice of a request to have outstanding charges tried, the State must do so within 180 days unless a continuance is granted under the statute's provisions. See K.S.A. 22-4303; State v. Burnett, 297 Kan. 447, Syl. ¶ 6, 301 P.3d 698 (2013).

In Diederich's case, none of the statutory provisions for continuing the 180-day period was used by the State. Accordingly, Diederich is right that the 180-day period expired, and that left the State without jurisdiction to proceed on the charges. We therefore reverse Diederich's convictions and remand the case to the district court with directions to dismiss the charges with prejudice, meaning that they cannot be refiled.

Factual and Procedural History

Diederich was arrested in Reno County on April 26, 2010, for felony theft. He posted bond and was released from custody that same day. By May 4, 2010, the State had formally charged him in district court with felony theft, identity theft, and forgery. The State ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.