TOPEKA—Judge W. Lee Fowler of the 5th judicial district has been appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in two cases on the court's 9 a.m. docket Monday, September 14.
After hearing oral arguments, Fowler will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and opinion drafting.
"I am so glad that Judge Fowler is taking time from his duties in the 5th judicial district to sit with the Supreme Court," said Chief Justice Lawton R. Nuss. "It's a great help to our court and we look forward to his contributions deliberating these two cases."
Fowler has served as a district judge since 1997 in the 5th judicial district, where he presides over cases in Lyon and Chase counties.
"It is an honor to be asked to sit with the Supreme Court," Fowler said. "It's also a privilege to serve as a member of the Kansas judiciary and that privilege is enhanced with this opportunity to sit with the Supreme Court."
Fowler is a Parsons native. He graduated from Emporia State University and Washburn University School of Law. He has served on the Kansas Sentencing Commission since 2013 and currently is vice chairman.
Fowler created a drug court in Emporia in 2004 and has presided over it since that time. He served as Chase County Attorney from 1985 to 1993, and later as defense counsel in private practice.
All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live through the Watch Supreme Court Live! link in the right-hand column of the Kansas Judicial Branch website at www.kscourts.org.
The cases Fowler will hear are scheduled at 9 a.m. Monday, September 14:
Appeal No. 109,292: State of Kansas v. Charles E. Shelly
Brown County: (Criminal Appeal) Shelly entered a no contest plea to one count each of unlawful distribution of a drug precursor and unlawful possession of a drug precursor. He was sentenced to serve 56 months in prison for the unlawful distribution count and a concurrent 49 month sentence for the unlawful possession count. The district court advised Shelly he had the right to appeal his sentence but no notice of appeal was filed. On the day Shelly was sentenced, the Supreme Court released it opinion in State v. Snellings, 294 Kan. 149, 273 P.3d 739 (2012), holding that possession of drug precursors and possession of drug paraphernalia are identical crimes. Shelly, while in prison, became aware of the Snellings decision and filed a pro se K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, arguing that his sentence should be modified under Snellings. The district court held that Snellings applied to count two, possession of a drug precursor, but not to count one, distribution of a drug precursor. Accordingly, the district court reduced Shelly's sentence.
Shelly appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to the district court to determine whether Shelly met the exceptions to the requirement of filing a timely notice of appeal. The district court found that Shelly did not. Shelly appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's determination. The Supreme Court granted Shelly's petition for review.
The issue on review is whether the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the district court's decision finding Shelly's appeal does not meet any of the exceptions to filing a timely notice of appeal.
Appeal No. 109,506: State of Kansas v. Cara N. Perry
Brown County: (Criminal Appeal) Perry entered a no contest plea to one count each of unlawful distribution of a drug precursor and unlawful possession of a drug precursor. She was sentenced to serve 54 months in prison for the unlawful distribution count and a concurrent 49 months for the unlawful possession count. The district court advised Perry that she had the right to appeal her sentence but no notice of appeal was filed.
On the day that Perry was sentenced, the Supreme Court released it opinion in State v. Snellings, 294 Kan. 149, 273 P.3d 739 (2012), holding that possession of drug precursors and possession of drug paraphernalia are identical crimes. Perry filed a pro se K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, arguing that she should have been sentenced under the provisions of K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5710(b). The district court held that Snellings applied to count two, possession of a drug precursor, but not to count one, distribution of a drug precursor. Accordingly, the district court reduced Perry's sentence.
Perry appealed her conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to the district court to determine whether Perry's 60-1507 motion should have been construed as a direct appeal of her sentence. The district court found that Perry did not satisfy any of the exceptions. The Court of Appeals found that Perry's challenge was property converted to a timely direct appeal. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for review.
The issue on review is whether the district court erred in finding that Perry was not entitled to file a belated appeal.