State v. Schlobohm

── State v. Schlobohm ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 127,288 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MATTHEW CHARLES SCHLOBOHM, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; AARON T. ROBERTS, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed June 5, 2026. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. Joseph A. Desch, of Law Office of Joseph A. Desch, of Topeka, for appellant. Garett C. Relph, deputy district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, for appellee. Before COBLE, P.J., HURST, J., and PAULA HOFAKER, District Judge, assigned. PER CURIAM: Matthew Charles Schlobohm entered a diversion agreement on drug-related charges. When he violated the conditions of that agreement, the State prosecuted the crime in a bench trial on stipulated facts. The district court convicted Schlobohm and sentenced him to probation. He filed an untimely notice of appeal, and our court remanded the appeal to the district court for consideration of an exception to the jurisdictional time bar under State v. Ortiz, 230 Kan. 733, 640 P.2d 1255 (1982). On remand, the district court concluded that Schlobohm had failed to establish any of the Ortiz exceptions. Schlobohm now appeals that determination. After review of the record 1 on appeal, we affirm the district court's finding on the third Ortiz exception as supported by the evidence. But we must remand to the district court for a hearing only on the third step in the first Ortiz exception's analysis, as explained below. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying circumstances of the charged drug crimes are immaterial to resolving the issues on appeal. The State offered Schlobohm a diversion agreement, and Schlobohm accepted, stipulating to facts supporting the underlying crimes. Several months later, the State moved to revoke the diversion. Ultimately, the court concluded that Schlobohm violated the terms of his diversion agreement and revoked the diversion. Schlobohm filed a motion for a dispositional sentencing departure. At sentencing, the court granted the departure, placing Schlobohm on probation for 18 months with an underlying controlling prison sentence of 18 months. At the end of the sentencing hearing, the court informed Schlobohm that he must file any notice of appeal within 14 days of sentencing. Schlobohm did not file a notice of appeal until he filed a pro se notice of intent to appeal almost two months after sentencing, on March 10, 2023. After the appeal was docketed, this court issued an order to show cause to the parties to explain why we possessed jurisdiction. After receiving responses, we remanded the case to the district court for a hearing to determine application of any exceptions to the late notice of appeal under Ortiz. On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing, at which Schlobohm's appointed defense attorney, Deb Erickson, and Schlobohm testified. Erickson testified that Schlobohm contacted her by email in late May 2023 about appealing his convictions and sentencing. Until that time, Erickson had received no indication that Schlobohm 2 wanted to take an appeal, and, even after Schlobohm contacted her, Erickson provided her frank assessment that any appeal would lack substantive merit. She also explained to Schlobohm that the time for filing an appeal had passed. Not surprisingly, Schlobohm's testimony contradicted Erickson's account.