Appeals

Appellate Litigation

Our trial experience translates into identifying appellate issues and preparing compelling appellate briefs. The attorneys at Bath & Edmonds have briefed and argued cases in numerous appellate venues including State courts of Kansas and Missouri, and the 10th and 8th Circuit Federal courts. We have also submitted briefs to the United States Supreme Court.

We have been involved in numerous published cases including:

State cases in which Bath & Edmonds attorneys were trial counsel (and in many cases appellate counsel)

  • State v. Autry, (pending) No. 114,101 Kansas Court of Appeals
  • State v. Kuszmaul, (pending) No. 113,296 Kansas Supreme Court
  • State v. Evans, No.  112,000 Kansas Court of Appeals (October 23, 2015)
  • State v. Spencer Gifts No. 111,398 Kansas Court of Appeals (April 24, 2015)
  • State v. Morrison No.  110,835 Kansas Court of Appeals (October 14, 2014); Kansas Supreme Court (October 2, 2015)
  • State v. Kraxner (unpublished) No.  110,795 Kansas Court of Appeals (June 5, 2015)
  • State v. Ahart (unpublished) No.  108,086 Kansas Court of Appeals (September 20, 2013)
  • State v. Stotts, (unpublished) No. 101,828 (December 16, 2011)
  • State v. Kuszmaul, (unpublished) No.  110,694 Kansas Court of Appeals (June 27, 2014)
  • State v. Landa No. 100,116 Kansas Court of Appeals (July 31, 2009)
  • State v. Murray 285 Kan. 503 (2008)
  • State v. Hohenadel, (unpublished) No. 94,856 (January 12, 2007)
    (Court reversed conviction for speedy trial violation)
  • State v Agron No. 95,697 Kansas Court of Appeals (January 12, 2007)
  • State v. Uhlig No. 96,663 Kansas Court of Appeals (November 2, 2007)
  • City of Lenexa v. Oligschlaeger, No. 92,146, Kansas Court of Appeals (2006)
  • State v. Rousseau, 34 S.W. 3d 254 (2000)
    (Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed trial court’s dismissal of charges)
  • In re: Care and Treatment of Ingram, 266 Kan. 46 (1998)
    (affirming dismissal of Sexual Predator action)
  • State v. Johnson-Howell, 225 Kan. 928 (1994)
    (defining circumstantial evidence in first degree murder case; admissibility of co-conspirator statement)
  • State v. Dotson, 256 Kan. 406 (1994)
    (defining admissibility of prior acts evidence regarding child abuse charges)
  • State v. Finley, 17 Kan. App. 2d 246 (1992)
    (defining reasonable suspicion for automobile stop)
  • State v. Clemons, 251 Kan. 473 (1992)
    (defining circumstantial evidence in 1st degree murder case)
  • State v. Blackburn, 251 Kan. 787 (1992)
    (defining admissibility of accused character evidence)
  • State v. Budgetts, 810 P.2d 1172 (1991)
  • State v. El Ayadi, 16 Kan. App. 2d 596 (1991)
    (defining newly discovered evidence regarding motion for new trial)
  • State v. Heide, 249 Kan 723 (1991)
    (1st impression holding re allocution at sentencing)
  • State v. Messer, (unpublished) No. 65,032 (July 12, 1991)
    (discussion of circumstantial evidence and robbery and aggravated kidnapping charges)
  • State v. Baptiste, (unpublished) No. 65,880 (August 23, 1991)
  • State v. Marino, (unpublished) No. 64,767 (April 26, 1991)
    (discussion of evidence regarding search and seizure and molotov cocktail evidence in narcotics distribution charge)
  • State v. Murphy, (unpublished) No. 65,357 (April 20, 1991)
  • State v. Pattison, (unpublished) No. 65,037 (April 19, 1991)
  • State v. Sorvisto, (unpublished) No. 65,158 (January 18, 1991)
    (discussion of when person is in custody which require Miranda)
  • State v. McKessor, 246 Kan. 1 (1990)
    (1st impression holding re public safety exception to 5th Amendment)
  • State v. Pitts, (unpublished) No. 64,674 (December 14, 1990)
  • State v. Winters, (unpublished) No. 64,072 (October 26, 1990)
  • State v. Williams, (unpublished) No. 63,945 (October 5, 1990)
    (discussion of evidence regarding second degree murder charge)
  • State v. Anderson, (unpublished) No. 64,173 (August 31, 1990)
  • State v. Griggs, (unpublished) No. 63,989 (July 13, 1990)
    (discussion of rape charge involving victim incapable of giving consent due to mental deficiency)
  • State v. Thomas, (unpublished) No. 64,043 (March 23, 1990)
  • State v. Windes, 13 Kan. App. 2d 577 (1989)
    (1st impression holding re 4th Amendment not applicable to private searches)
  • State v. Abell, (unpublished) No. 62,730 (October 20, 1989)
  • State v. Comstock, (unpublished) No. 62,864 (September 8, 1989)
  • State v. Taylor, (unpublished) No. 62,107 (May 19, 1989)
  • In re D. H., (unpublished) No. 62,504 (May 12, 1989)
    (discussion of sufficiency of evidence for termination of parental rights; Court of Appeals decision later reversed by the Supreme Court of Kansas)
  • State v. Razminas, (unpublished) No. 62,349 (April 21, 1989)
  • State v. Heard, (unpublished) No. 62,004 (December 16, 1988)
  • State v. Ford, (unpublished) No. 61,450 (September 30, 1988)
  • State v. Galloway, 235 Kan. 70 (1984)
    (1st impression regarding use of composite image in Kansas)
  • State v. Latimer, 9 Kan.App. 2d 728 (1984)
    (interpretation of a using a false name to obstruct law enforcement)

State cases in which Bath & Edmonds attorneys were appellate counsel

  • State v. Zimmerman, 251 Kan. 54 (1992)
  • State v. Lawrence, (unpublished) No. 67,018 (June 5, 1992)
  • State v. Dewitt, (unpublished) No. 66,349 (March 20, 1992)
    (discusses standard of evidence regarding child abuse charges)
  • State v. Kirkwood, (unpublished) No. 66,419 (March 13, 1992)
  • State v. Mank, (unpublished) No. 66,136 (September 13, 1991)
  • State v. Howard, (unpublished) No. 64,859 (November 21, 1990)
  • Lile v. State, (unpublished) No. 64,134 (July 27, 1990)
  • State v. Dodd, (unpublished) No. 64,021 (March 23, 1990)
  • State v. McKessor, (unpublished) No. 62,067 (January 19, 1990)
  • State v. Jackman, (unpublished) No. 62,380 (March 24, 1989)

Federal cases in which Bath & Edmonds’ attorneys were trial counsel (and in most instances appellate counsel)

  • U.S. v. Perez Jacome, 09-3054 (10th Cir.2009)
  • U.S. v. Alexander, (8th Cir. Court 2009)
  • U.S. v. Welch, 07-3062 (10th Cir. 2008)
    (unpublished)
  • U.S. v. Ivory, 532 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2008)
    (contested issues: weight of narcotics; challenge to sentencing enhancements; prosecutorial misconduct)
  • U.S. v. Frencher, 503 F.3d 701 (8th Cir. 2008)
    (contested issue on appeal: Fourth Amendment search/seizure of 3rd party in another’s residence)
  • U.S. v. Klima, 07-3073 (10th Cir. 2007)
  • U.S. v. Leon, 06-3195,(10th Cir 2007)
  • U.S. v. Cacioppo, 460 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2006)
    (conviction reversed based on trial errors and sufficiency of proof)
  • U.S. v. Caballero, 420 F3d. 819 (8th Cir. 2005)
  • U.S. v. Daniels, 174 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (D. Kan. 2001)
    (various pretrial issues regarding physician charged with multiple counts of health care fraud)
  • U.S. v. Smith, 264 F. 3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2001)
    (interpretation of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine under federal sentencing guidelines)
  • U.S. v. Coon, 187 F. 3d 888 (1999)
    (discussion of evidence sufficient for RICO, travel act and conspiracy violations)
  • U.S. v. McGuire, 200 F. 3d 668 (10th Cir. 1999)
    (discussing elements of the offense of carjacking and the scope of permissible cross-examination)
  • U.S. v. Ball, Case No. 99-20029 (D. Kan. 1999)
    (Rule 17 Subpoenas)
  • U.S. v. Storey, 956 F. Supp. 934 (D. Kan. 1997)
    (various pretrial issues regarding federal death penalty case)
  • U.S. v. Williams, 109 F. 3d 502 (8th Cir. 1997)
    (federal sentencing guidelines issues: weight calculation and sentencing entrapment)
  • U.S. v. McCloud, 127 F. 3d 1284 (10th Cir. 1997)
    (interpretation of “knock and announce” rule during the execution of a search warrant, and quantity of “crack cocaine” to be used for sentencing)
  • U.S. v. Riley, 78 F. 3d 367 (8th Cir. 1996)
    (reversal of pre-conviction seizure of assets in RICO case)
  • U.S. v. Scroger, 98 F. 3d 1256 (10th Cir. 1996)
    (discussion of exigent circumstances in seizure of methamphetamine laboratory)
  • U.S. v. Taylor, 97 F. 3d 1360 (10th Cir. 1996)
    (interpretation of relevant conduct for methamphetamine labs under the sentencing guidelines)
  • U.S. v. Kimball, 73 F. 3d 269 (10th Cir. 1995)
    (discussion of FRE 404(b) and res gestae in bank robbery case)
  • U.S. v. Hill, 60 F. 3d 672 (10th Cir. 1995)
    (interpretation of FRE 404(b) and prior arrests in narcotics distribution case)
  • U.S. v. Turner, 44 F. 3d 900 (10th Cir. 1995)
    (case of 1st impression on use of “necessity” as a defense in abortion rights case)
  • U.S. v. Owen, 15 F. 3d 1528 (10th Cir. 1994)
  • U.S. v. Jackson, 863 F. Supp. 1462 (D. Kan. 1994)
  • U.S. v. Hand, 913 F. 2d 854 (10th Cir. 1990)
    (interpretation of plea agreement’s affect on cross-examination at sentencing)
  • U.S. v. Mora, 845 F. 2d 233 (10th Cir. 1988)
    (discussion of chain of custody, prior bad acts and sufficiency of the evidence in narcotics conspiracy prosecution)
  • U.S. v. Mayfield, 810 F. 2d 943 (10th Cir. 1987)
    (interpretation of prior conviction under federal felon in possession of firearms charges)

Federal cases in which Bath & Edmonds attorneys were appellate counsel

  • U.S. v. Osborn, Case No. 01-3094 (Lexis 4180) (10th Cir. 2002)
  • U.S. v. Williams, 50 F.3d 863 (10th Cir. 1995)
    (determination of relevant conduct for interstate theft from a retail establishment)
  • U.S. v. Smith, 810 F.2d 996 (10th Cir. 1987)
    (examination of whether a search by a private party constitutes an unconstitutional seizure when item is turned over to law enforcement)
  • U.S. v. Rome, 809 F.2d 665 (10th Cir. 1987)
    (discussion of legality of telephonic search warrant in narcotics prosecution)

Contact us today to schedule a personal meeting!