State v. Hannebohn, 301 P.3d 340

Hannebohn pleaded guilty to criminal threat; restitution was ordered but amount to be determined later.
At initial sentencing, court advised rights and 14-day appeal deadline; restitution amount later determined at a restitution hearing.
restitution hearing set final amount of $2,776.64; no reminder of appeal rights given at that hearing.
Counsel later learned case not on appeal; motion to file an out-of-time appeal was filed February 2, 2012.
District court denied motion summarily, citing prior informings of appeal rights; case on appeal to review Ortiz exceptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did district court err by denying under the first Ortiz exception?	Hannebohn claims failure to inform at restitution hearing violated Ortiz.	State contends information was given earlier; no need to repeat at restitution.	Remanded for factual findings under Patton framework.
Did district court err by failing to address the third Ortiz exception?	Counsel failed to perfect and complete an appeal; relief warranted.	No direct consideration of third exception in denial.	Remand required to make facts and law on third Ortiz exception.

State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200 (Kan. 2008) (framework for first Ortiz exception.analysis)
State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394 (Kan. 2005) (substantial evidence standard; de novo ultimate ruling)
State v. McDaniel, 292 Kan. 443 (Kan. 2011) (restitution completion; informing appeal rights timing)
State v. Cooper, 267 Kan. 15 (Kan. 1999) (restitution hearing timing and finality of sentence)
State v. Gill, 287 Kan. 289 (Kan. 2008) (jurisdiction and appeal rights timing requirements)
Gates v. Goodyear, 37 Kan. App. 2d 623 (Kan. App. 2007) (final judgment; piecemeal appeal prohibition)
State v. Neer, 247 Kan. 137 (Kan. 1990) (final judgment and appeal timing principles)
Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty, 291 Kan. 597 (Kan. 2010) (avoidance of piecemeal appeals; final judgment)