State v. Gonzales

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 114,222

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

GERARDO GONZALES,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Finney District Court; ROBERT J. FREDERICK, judge. Opinion filed March 3, 2017.
Affirmed.

Ryan J. Eddinger, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Nicholas C. Vrana, assistant county attorney, Susan Hillier Richmeier, county attorney, and
Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., ATCHESON and BRUNS, JJ.

Per Curiam: A jury sitting in Finney County District Court in 2015 convicted
Defendant Gerardo Gonzales of two felonies and a misdemeanor, finding he vandalized a
marked patrol car belonging to Garden City Police Department. For his sole issue on
appeal, Gonzales contends the district court erred in denying his pretrial motion to
suppress inculpatory statements he made to a Garden City police officer on the grounds
they were involuntary. See Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 376-77, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12
L. Ed. 2d 908 (1964); State v. Betancourt, 301 Kan. 282, 289, 342 P.3d 916 (2015)
(noting that "at a Jackson v. Denno hearing, the issue before the court is whether
2

defendant's statement or confession was voluntary"). The State counters that Gonzales
failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the introduction of the statements during
the trial and, therefore, failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. See K.S.A. 60-
404. Gonzales has offered no reply explaining how the point has been preserved.

In recent years, the Kansas Supreme Court has implacably and strictly enforced
the contemporaneous objection rule. See State v. Potts, 304 Kan. 687, 699-701, 374 P.3d
639 (2016); State v. Hollingsworth, 289 Kan. 1250, 1256-57, 221 P.3d 1122 (2009). The
Hollingsworth decision is controlling. There, in a Jackson v. Denno hearing, the district
court found Hollingsworth's statements to be voluntary and admissible. Hollingsworth
failed to again assert involuntariness in an objection when the statements were offered at
trial, so the court refused to consider the issue on appeal. 289 Kan. at 1255-57.

The lack of a contemporaneous objection at trial has doomed Gonzales' appeal.

Affirmed.