State v. LaPointe, 355 P.3d 694

LaPointe was convicted in 2004 of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault for a Payless store robbery, receiving a lengthy sentence (245 months).
In 2014, LaPointe sought postconviction DNA testing under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-2512(a), (c).
District court granted testing, relying on Cheeks to extend DNA testing to similarly situated defendants.
The State appealed the district court’s order, arguing the appeal was proper as a question reserved.
Testing was completed; results largely favored LaPointe or were inconclusive, with some DNA evidence excluded as LaPointe’s source.
The district court later denied relief, and this appeal followed to challenge the testing order as improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review the DNA-testing order as a question reserved	LaPointe argues the appeal is proper as a question reserved under statute.	State contends it has jurisdiction to appeal the pretrial order as a question reserved.	State lacked jurisdiction; dismissal of the appeal.
Civil analogies and alternative grounds for jurisdiction	State argues civil-procedure analogies support jurisdiction.	LaPointe contends these analogies are improper and do not confer jurisdiction.	No basis to broaden jurisdiction; appeal dismissed for lack of authority.

State v. Grimes, 229 Kan. 143 (1981) (final judgment requirement for question-reserved review)
State v. Puckett, 227 Kan. 911 (1980) (final-judgment prerequisite for question-reserved appeal)
State v. Berreth, 294 Kan. 98 (2012) (limits on question-reserved appeals; statewide importance)
State v. Sales, 290 Kan. 130 (2010) (interlocutory appeal limitations for State)
State v. Pearce, 51 Kan. App. 2d 116 (2015) (scope of question-reserved review in appellate practice)
State v. Dearman, No. 110,798, 2014 WL 3397185 (2014) (cited for interlocutory appeal analogies (unpublished))