State v. Yazell, 465 P.3d 1147

Corey Leroy Yazell pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and driving while suspended, received a 14-month sentence (suspended) and 12 months probation.
The State moved to revoke probation based on an out-of-state (Missouri) arrest and other alleged violations; at the revocation hearing the district court heard hearsay interstate-compact reports via Yazell’s Kansas compact officer and revoked probation, imposing the original sentence.
Yazell appealed, arguing the district court relied on inadmissible hearsay in violation of due process.
While the appeal was pending, the Court of Appeals sua sponte ordered the parties to show cause why the appeal was not moot; the State submitted a KASPER printout and an unsworn description of a phone call with a KDOC employee asserting Yazell was released.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot without explaining its factual basis. Yazell petitioned for review. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Issue	Yazell's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether an appellate court may rely on KASPER printouts and unsworn off‑record communications to establish factual changes (custodial status)	KASPER and an unsworn phone call are unreliable hearsay; appellate courts should not base factual findings on them	KASPER and the KDOC call established Yazell’s noncustodial status and mootness	Appellate courts may not rely on KASPER printouts or unsworn off‑record assertions; KASPER is unreliable for appellate fact‑finding and such materials are improper bases for dismissal
Whether completion of a sentence automatically renders an appeal moot	A revocation finding can affect future proceedings; completion of sentence does not automatically moot the appeal	Completion of sentence renders issues moot if no practical relief remains	Completion of sentence does not automatically moot an appeal; mootness requires clear and convincing showing that no judgment could have any effect on parties’ rights

In re Burnette, 73 Kan. 609 (1906) (standard that appellate fact‑finding reviewed de novo where no district factual finding exists)
State v. Thomas, 288 Kan. 157 (2009) (appellate courts do not make factual findings; district court is factfinder)
State v. Raiburn, 289 Kan. 319 (2009) (State’s mere allegations of noncustody insufficient; remand required for factual hearing)
State v. Brownlee, 302 Kan. 491 (2015) (refused to consider off‑record documents not in trial record or not subject to judicial notice)
State v. Montgomery, 295 Kan. 837 (2012) (mootness standard quoted: must be clearly and convincingly shown that controversy ended and judgment would have no effect)
State v. Jenkins, 311 Kan. 39 (2020) (review for substantial competent evidence; appellate courts should not reweigh evidence)
State v. Taylor, 198 Kan. 290 (1967) (uncertified machine copies of records are hearsay and not subject to judicial notice)