In re I.A., 491 P.3d 1241

In 1998, 17-year-old I.A. pled guilty to two counts of reckless aggravated battery after shooting BB pellets at motorists; remaining charges were dismissed in exchange for the plea.
At plea the court advised the juvenile of rights listed in K.S.A. 38-1633(b), but that statute did not require advising a right to appeal; I.A. was adjudicated, sentenced to one year probation, ordered restitution, and released in 1999.
About 19 years later I.A. sought to file a direct appeal out of time, claiming the sentencing judge did not inform him of his right to appeal or obtain a knowing waiver of rights.
The Court of Appeals remanded for a factual finding; the district court found the original judge had not advised I.A. of the right to appeal.
The Court of Appeals held juveniles have no statutory or constitutional right to have a judge inform them of the right to appeal and dismissed the untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review limited to the jurisdictional issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a juvenile has a statutory or constitutional right to have a judge inform them of the right to appeal, such that due process requires allowing an out-of-time appeal	I.A.: due process and fundamental fairness require an exception (analogous to Ortiz) because the judge never informed him of the right to appeal	State: no juvenile statute requires such notification; the right to appeal is statutory (not fundamental); Ortiz exceptions apply only where statute requires notification	Held: No. Applying Patterson/Medina, no constitutional or statutory right exists for juveniles to have judges announce appeal rights; due process does not require extending the appeal deadline; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

State v. Ortiz, 230 Kan. 733 (Kan. 1982) (recognized three circumstances allowing late criminal appeals when defendants lacked notice or counsel assistance)
State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200 (Kan. 2008) (applied Patterson and tied Ortiz's first exception to statutory duties to notify criminal defendants)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (civil due-process balancing test)
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1977) (criminal due-process test: only protections "so rooted in the traditions and conscience" are fundamental)
Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1992) (Mathews not appropriate for criminal procedure; narrow fundamental-fairness approach)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (juveniles entitled to certain constitutional protections but not a constitutional right to appellate review)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (reasonable-doubt standard applies to juveniles)
In re L.M., 286 Kan. 460 (Kan. 2008) (juveniles entitled to jury trial under Sixth Amendment in Kansas)
Ware v. State, 198 Kan. 523 (Kan. 1967) (the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not an inherent constitutional right)
Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty, 291 Kan. 597 (Kan. 2010) (appellate courts must question jurisdiction and review legal questions de novo)