State v. Wright, 112635

Kristofer J. Wright was charged with first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy; attorney Timothy Frieden initially represented him.
Wright sent letters to counsel and filed one with the court asserting he did not want any continuances and invoking his right to be present at all critical stages.
On August 19, 2013, Frieden requested and the district court granted a continuance; Wright was not present and trial was later delayed past the 90-day statutory period.
Wright filed a pro se motion to dismiss arguing speedy-trial and right-to-be-present violations; the district court denied the motion after hearing, with Wright permitted to speak.
New counsel later represented Wright at trial; the motion-for-new-trial hearing focused on speedy-trial issues and the court made no factual findings about the August 19 absence; neither new counsel nor the State objected to the lack of findings.
The Kansas Supreme Court found Wright’s right to be present at the continuance hearing was violated but remanded for factual findings because the record lacked necessary detail to assess harmlessness; appellate jurisdiction was retained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a continuance hearing is a critical stage requiring defendant's presence	State: continuance requested by counsel attributable to defendant unless timely objection; defendant must have opportunity to be present	Wright: he timely objected (via letters) and should have been present to voice objection	Court: continuance is a critical stage; defendant entitled to be present (citing Dupree, Verser)
Whether Wright's right to be present was violated on Aug 19	State: no findings show prejudice; State would have sought continuance if notified	Wright: counsel requested continuance without his authorization despite his expressed objection	Held: Wright's right to be present was violated (court determined error occurred)
Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	State: must prove harmlessness	Wright: absence may have been prejudicial; record insufficient	Held: Harmlessness cannot be assessed on current record; factual findings required before harmlessness review
Whether remand for factual findings is required and who bears responsibility for inadequate record	State: generally bears burden to show harmlessness; trial counsel and judge also responsible for creating findings	Wright: he raised the issue repeatedly and is not to blame for missing findings	Held: Remand to district court for specific factual findings is required; appellate court retains jurisdiction

State v. Verser, 299 Kan. 776, 326 P.3d 1046 (discusses right to be present and harmless-error framework)
State v. Dupree, 304 Kan. 43, 371 P.3d 862 (continuance requested by counsel attributable to defendant unless timely objection; defendant must have opportunity to be present)
State v. Brownlee, 302 Kan. 491, 354 P.3d 525 (limited appellate remedy even if continuance later attributed to the State)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 256 P.3d 801 (party benefiting from error must prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Hoge, 283 Kan. 219, 150 P.3d 905 (appellate review precluded when trial court findings inadequate)
State v. Moncla, 269 Kan. 61, 4 P.3d 618 (district court must make factual findings before appellate review)
State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 269 P.3d 1268 (remand appropriate when findings are inadequate)
State v. Seward, 289 Kan. 715, 217 P.3d 443 (defendant may preserve constitutional claims but inadequate findings hamper review)
State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234, 328 P.3d 1081 (remand versus resolution depends on whether issue can be decided without findings)
State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 716 P.2d 580 (procedure for remand with retained appellate jurisdiction)