State v. Jarmon

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 113,380


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

VINCENT R. JARMON,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; BRUCE C. BROWN, judge. Opinion filed February 26,
2016. Appeal dismissed.

Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

Before GREEN, P.J., BUSER, J., and HEBERT, S.J.

Per Curiam: Vincent R. Jarmon appeals from a district court ruling denying his
motion to correct illegal sentence. Jarmon moves for summary disposition of the appeal
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 67). The State of
Kansas does not oppose summary disposition. After considering the matter, we dismiss
Jarmon's appeal as moot.

On December 19, 2013, the Sedgwick County District Court sentenced Jarmon
upon his conviction in case No. 13 CR 1232. Jarmon filed a notice of appeal and,
according to the files and records of this court, later filed a motion with our court in case
2

No. 111,608 to docket the direct appeal out of time. On April 29, 2014, our court granted
Jarmon's motion to docket out of time.

On June 16, 2014, Jarmon filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence in case
No. 13 CR 1232, based on State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312, 323 P.3d 846 (2014),
modified by Supreme Court order September 19, 2014, overruled by State v. Keel, 302
Kan. 560, Syl. ¶ 9, 357 P.3d 251 (2015). On August 13, 2014, Jarmon's trial counsel also
filed a motion to correct illegal sentence in case No. 13 CR 1232 based on Murdock.

On November 21, 2014, Jarmon's appellate counsel filed his brief in case No.
111,608, again raising a Murdock issue. On December 12, 2014, the Sedgwick County
District Court dismissed both of Jarmon's motions to correct illegal sentence. The district
court reasoned that because Jarmon's case was on direct appeal, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider a motion to correct illegal sentence. Jarmon again filed a notice of
appeal, resulting in the present appeal.

On February 26, 2016, our court filed its opinion in the direct appeal. See State v.
Jarmon, No. 111,608, this day decided (unpublished opinion). In that opinion, our court
ruled in part that Jarmon did not show error because the Kansas Supreme Court had
overruled Murdock in Keel. 302 Kan. 560.

The parties do not address the district court's ruling below that it lacked
jurisdiction over the motions to correct illegal sentence. However, the jurisdictional issue
is now moot because the underlying, substantive issue has been resolved by our court
against Jarmon in case No. 111,608. Because we do not as a general rule consider moot
issues, the present appeal is dismissed. See State v. Montgomery, 295 Kan. 837, 840, 286
P.3d 866 (2012).

Appeal dismissed.