The Kansas Supreme Court has reinforced critical procedural protections for criminal defendants in *State v. Collins*, clarifying the limited circumstances under which defendants can pursue appeals despite filing untimely notices. The decision strengthens due process safeguards in the criminal appeals process while maintaining the general rule that appellate courts must dismiss cases with late filings.
The court reaffirmed the foundational principle that Kansas appellate courts have jurisdiction only as provided by law, making untimely appeal notices typically fatal to a defendant's case. However, the court emphasized the continued validity of three narrow exceptions established in *State v. Ortiz*, 230 Kan. 733, 640 P.2d 1255 (1982), which protect defendants in specific situations where their appeal rights were compromised.
The three *Ortiz* exceptions apply when a defendant was not informed of their right to appeal, was not furnished an attorney to perfect an appeal, or was provided an attorney who failed to properly complete the appellate process. The Kansas Supreme Court clarified that these exceptions serve different constitutional purposes - the first addresses procedural due process concerns, while the second and third focus on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and effective assistance of counsel.
The court provided detailed guidance on the first *Ortiz* exception, establishing a three-step burden-shifting framework that courts must follow when defendants claim they were not properly informed of their appeal rights. This analysis represents a significant procedural clarification for trial courts and defense attorneys handling criminal cases.
In the initial phase, defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that the district court failed to provide three critical pieces of information: their right to appeal, the timeline for filing an appeal, and their right to appointed appellate counsel if indigent. The court specified that defendants can satisfy this burden by showing the absence of appellate right advisements in the relevant trial transcript.
If defendants successfully demonstrate this failure, the burden shifts to the state in the second phase. Prosecutors must then prove that defendants had actual knowledge of all three required pieces of information despite the court's failure to provide proper advisements. This places a substantial evidentiary burden on the state to overcome the presumption that defendants were prejudiced by inadequate court advisements.
The final phase returns the burden to defendants, who must demonstrate they would have filed a timely appeal had they received proper information from the court. This requirement ensures that defendants cannot benefit from procedural violations unless they can show actual prejudice from the court's failure.
The decision reflects the Kansas Supreme Court's commitment to balancing judicial efficiency with constitutional protections. While maintaining the general rule that jurisdictional deadlines must be strictly observed, the court preserved essential safeguards for defendants whose appeal rights were compromised through no fault of their own.
The *Collins* decision has immediate practical implications for criminal defense attorneys, who must carefully document their clients' interactions with trial courts regarding appeal rights. The ruling also guides trial judges in ensuring they provide complete appellate advisements to avoid creating grounds for late appeals under the *Ortiz* exceptions.
Prosecutors will need to maintain detailed records showing defendants received proper information about their appeal rights when challenging untimely appeals. The three-phase analysis creates a structured framework that should provide greater predictability in how courts handle these challenging procedural questions.
The court's emphasis on the constitutional foundations underlying each *Ortiz* exception demonstrates the continued vitality of these protections more than 40 years after their initial recognition. The decision reinforces that procedural rules cannot be applied in ways that effectively deny defendants their fundamental right to appellate review when constitutional violations have occurred.
Legal practitioners note that the *Collins* decision provides much-needed clarity on evidentiary standards and burden allocation in cases involving untimely appeals. The structured three-phase analysis should help trial courts make more consistent rulings while protecting defendants' constitutional rights in the appeals process.
The ruling comes at a time when appellate courts nationwide continue to grapple with balancing strict procedural requirements against constitutional protections for criminal defendants. The Kansas Supreme Court's approach in *Collins* offers a model for maintaining jurisdictional integrity while preserving essential due process safeguards.
Defense attorneys handling criminal appeals should carefully review trial transcripts for evidence of incomplete appellate advisements and document any failures to meet the standards established in *Collins*. The decision provides a clear roadmap for challenging untimely appeal dismissals when constitutional violations have occurred during the trial proceedings.