State v. LaPointe
112019
Kan.Mar 3, 2017Background
- LaPointe was convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault and sentenced to lengthy terms; direct appeals were concluded years earlier.
- About 7 years post-conviction LaPointe filed a motion in his criminal docket seeking postconviction DNA testing under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-2512, arguing equal protection grounds to extend the statute beyond murder/rape based on his long sentence.
- The district court granted DNA testing; the State appealed, invoking the criminal "question reserved" appeal procedure under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3602(b)(3).
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the State's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding no final judgment existed when the State appealed because an order granting testing is an interim step under 21-2512.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review limited to the jurisdictional question and affirmed the Court of Appeals: the State lacked a statutory right to appeal the interim DNA-testing order under the question-reserved mechanism.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may take a question-reserved appeal from a district court order granting postconviction DNA testing | State: The order granting testing is appealable as a question reserved under K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3) | LaPointe: Question-reserved appeals require a final judgment; the testing order is interlocutory | Held: No. Question-reserved appeals require a final judgment; the testing order is not final |
| Whether an order granting DNA testing is a final judgment | State: The grant should be treated as final (or at least appealable) | LaPointe: 21-2512 makes the grant a midpoint; further proceedings after testing are mandatory | Held: Order granting testing is interlocutory/midpoint under 21-2512 and not final |
| Whether a premature notice of appeal may lie dormant until posttesting finality (Hall/dormancy rule) | State: The notice could be treated as premature and become effective once later proceedings produced final judgment | LaPointe: Allowing dormancy would permit piecemeal appeals and undermine finality policies | Held: Dormancy doctrine in Hall doesn't apply; permitting dormant question-reserved appeals would encourage piecemeal litigation and is rejected |
| Whether finality of the original conviction/sentence or civil-appellate principles supplies jurisdiction | State: Underlying criminal sentence is final; or civil/collateral-order analogies supply appellate jurisdiction | LaPointe: New 21-2512 proceedings require their own finality; State elected criminal question-reserved route so cannot recast appeal as civil | Held: Underlying conviction's finality and civil doctrines do not make the interim testing order appealable under the chosen question-reserved criminal route |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Berreth, 294 Kan. 98 (Kan. 2012) (appeal rights are statutory; State cannot expand elected basis for jurisdiction)
- State v. Puckett, 227 Kan. 911 (Kan. 1980) (question-reserved appeals presuppose a final judgment)
- State v. Leonard, 248 Kan. 427 (Kan. 1991) (question-reserved appeals limited to questions of statewide importance)
- State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978 (Kan. 2014) (premature notice seeking review of final judgment may lie dormant until final judgment is complete)
- State v. Denney, 283 Kan. 781 (Kan. 2007) (21-2512 proceedings follow clear statutory procedures distinct from original trial)
- Haddock v. State, 282 Kan. 475 (Kan. 2006) (statute mandates specific dispositions after DNA test results)