State v. Burnett
297 Kan. 447
Kan.2013Background
- Burnett charged Sept. 7, 2006 in Reno County with aggravated weapons violation and related offenses.
- While serving a separate McPherson County sentence, Burnett filed a February 7, 2007 UMDDA request for final disposition of Reno County charges.
- Burnett was transferred to KDOC custody on March 12, 2007; multiple continuances followed before trial.
- Burnett moved to dismiss Aug. 9, 2007, asserting failure to bring to trial within 180 days of the UMDDA request.
- District court denied the motion, ruling the UMDDA did not apply; Burnett was later convicted and sentenced.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the district court; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve UMDDA applicability and timing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UMDDA applicability to custody status | Burnett properly invoked UMDDA; KDOC custody applies | State argues UMDDA does not apply while Burnett was not KDOC custody at filing | UMDDA applicable; Burnett was in KDOC custody for purposes of the statute |
| Start date and tolling of the 180-day period | Start date is Feb. 7, 2007; no tolling evidence | No tolling shown; continuances not claimed to toll period | 180-day period began Feb. 7, 2007 and expired; no tolling shown |
| Procedural bars to review | Procedural flaws do not bar merits review under UMDDA | Appellate panel correctly found procedural deficiencies | No procedural bar to addressing merits; review proper |
| Result of 180-day breach | District court lacked jurisdiction to proceed | Not explicitly discussed beyond timing | District court erred; conviction reversed and sentence vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stanphill, 206 Kan. 612, 481 P.2d 998 (Kan. 1971) (UMDDA purpose and timing applied; 180-day frame conclusive if conditions met)
- Pierson v. State, 210 Kan. 367, 502 P.2d 721 (Kan. 1972) (burden shifts to custody officials after proper invocation of UMDDA)
- State v. Goetz, 187 Kan. 117, 353 P.2d 816 (Kan. 1960) (custody and detainer philosophy in detainer statutes)
- State v. Ellis, 208 Kan. 59, 490 P.2d 364 (Kan. 1971) (UMDDA aims to prevent delays in pending charges while prisoner incarcerated)
- State v. Dolack, 216 Kan. 622, 533 P.2d 1282 (Kan. 1975) (detainer statute interpretation consistent with timely disposition)