State v. Perry, 370 P.3d 754

Cara N. Perry pleaded no contest to one count each of unlawful distribution and unlawful possession of a drug precursor (severity level 2 felonies) and was sentenced on April 6, 2012.
At sentencing the court advised Perry of her 14‑day right to appeal and availability of appointed counsel; Perry acknowledged understanding the appeal deadline.
Perry's trial counsel, Robert Arnold III, told Perry after sentencing there was "nothing to appeal" and did not file a timely notice of appeal; Arnold later learned of State v. Snellings after the appeal deadline had passed.
Snellings (issued the day of Perry's sentencing) held that certain precursor offenses may be identical to paraphernalia offenses, potentially reducing severity and sentence; Perry said she would have appealed had she known of Snellings.
The Court of Appeals remanded for an Ortiz hearing and then held the third Ortiz exception applied, relying on the Flores‑Ortega ineffective‑assistance framework as adopted in Patton; the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed application of the third Ortiz exception but did not reach the Snellings merits issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Perry)	Held
Whether the third Ortiz exception permits a late direct appeal when counsel erroneously advises there is no issue to appeal	Ortiz exceptions do not apply because Perry was informed of appeal rights and had counsel available; Perry did not direct counsel to appeal	Counsel's erroneous advice that there was nothing to appeal—when counsel was unaware of Snellings—amounts to failure to perfect an appeal under Ortiz; but‑for counsel's advice Perry would have timely appealed	Yes. The third Ortiz exception applies where counsel's failure to inform a defendant of meritorious grounds (under Flores‑Ortega standard) deprived the defendant of a timely appeal (affirmed)
Whether the Court should resolve the Snellings identical‑offense sentencing issue on review	State did not press error on the Court of Appeals' merits ruling	Perry argued her distribution conviction should be reclassified under Snellings	Not reached by Kansas Supreme Court (Court of Appeals had ruled in Perry's favor, but the State did not contest that ruling on review)

State v. Ortiz, 230 Kan. 733 (permitting late appeals when defendant not informed of right to appeal, not furnished counsel to perfect appeal, or furnished counsel who failed to perfect appeal)
Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (establishing ineffective‑assistance framework when counsel's failure causes forfeiture of appeal rights)
State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200 (adopting Flores‑Ortega standard for the third Ortiz exception)
State v. Snellings, 294 Kan. 149 (holding certain precursor offenses may be identical to paraphernalia offenses, affecting classification/sentencing)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective‑assistance two‑prong standard used for errors within proceedings)