State of Kansas, Appellee, v. II (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael A. Kinnaird II appeals his conviction of one count of criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon following a bench trial. On appeal, the sole issue raised by Kinnaird is whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the district court's verdict. The State, in turn, argues that the defendant's premature notice of appeal deprived our court of jurisdiction. After reviewing the record, we find that each party's argument lacks merit and therefore affirm the defendant's conviction.

Factual and Procedural History

Kinnaird was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon following a one-day bench trial in Sedgwick County District Court. The charge arose out of events that occurred on January 17, 2024.

At trial, Wichita Police Officer Brock Kampling testified that on January 17, 2024, he was dispatched to a hotel on Kellogg Avenue in west Wichita for reports of shots being fired. A hotel manager gave Kampling access to the building's surveillance system. Kampling gathered evidence in the form of still photos taken from a hotel security camera. In one photo, Kampling testified he recognized one man who was coming out of a room into the hotel hallway and holding a gun as Cale Shinn. In another photo, Kampling stated that he could not recognize a second man coming out of the same hotel room, but the man also appeared to be holding a handgun.

Following up, Kampling disseminated the photos of the two individuals to his Violent Crime Community Response Team. One of the officers on the team, Christopher Hornberger, identified the unknown individual as Kinnaird. At trial, Officer Hornberger testified he knew that Kinnaird had a GPS monitor at the time and it showed Kinnaird at a hotel located on the other side of town in east Wichita. When Hornberger arrived at the east side location, hotel staff informed him Kinnaird was in Room 221. While Hornberger was present, he spoke with a woman who exited Room 221; the woman confirmed that Kinnaird was in the room and gave Hornberger permission to enter. After obtaining backup assistance, Hornberger entered the room and found Kinnaird sitting on the hotel room couch. Kinnaird was quickly taken into custody by officers.

Within Room 221, officers found a jacket matching the one Kinnaird wore when he was caught on surveillance video, as well as a handgun hidden under the cushions of the couch where Kinnaird had been seated in the hotel room.

At trial, the State called Wichita Police Sergeant Atlee Vogt, who testified that he investigated the reported shooting on January 17. He reviewed surveillance video from the hotel in west Wichita. Like Officer Hornberger, Vogt identified Kinnaird as the second person with Shinn. Vogt concluded that it appeared Kinnaird was holding a handgun concealed in his waistband, based on the position of Kinnaird's fingers.

Vogt testified he interviewed Kinnaird after he was taken into custody. During the interview, Kinnaird admitted his DNA would be present on the firearm because he touched it.

The State, in its closing statement, argued that the evidence all together showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Kinnaird had knowledge of the firearm, was in control of the hotel room, and was in possession of the firearm. Kinnaird argued that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that he had possession of the firearm at any time.

Following closing arguments, the district court found Kinnaird guilty of criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. The district court noted that the firearm was found where Kinnaird was sitting, and Kinnaird admitted his DNA was on the gun. In summary, the district court judge stated, “The evidence speaks for itself.” Kinnaird was later sentenced to a prison term of 19 months and 12 months of postrelease supervision.

The district court convicted Kinnaird on November 7, 2024, and sentenced him on December 19, 2024. Kinnaird filed his notice of appeal on November 21, 2024, after the bench trial, but before sentencing occurred.

Analysis

Kinnaird successfully preserved his right to appeal.

At the outset, we need to address an issue the State has raised in an attempt to roadblock Kinnaird's appeal. The State argues that we do not have jurisdiction because Kinnaird did not file a notice of appeal after an entry of judgment. Kinnaird filed his notice prematurely, 14 days after the bench trial. As noted, the district court sentenced Kinnaird approximately 30 days after the notice of appeal was filed.

Neither party raised nor discussed the issue of jurisdiction below in the district court, though it certainly could have been addressed at the sentencing hearing.

The timely filing of a notice of appeal ordinarily is jurisdictional. State v. Shelly, 303 Kan. 1027, 1036, 371 P.3d 820 (2016). A criminal defendant has 14 days from judgment to file a notice of appeal. K.S.A. 22-3608(c). Judgment in a criminal case is completed by sentencing. State v. McGaugh, 56 Kan. App. 2d 286, 289, 427 P.3d 978 (2018). The time to file a notice runs from oral pronouncement of sentence instead of the filing of a journal entry. State v. Ehrlich, 286 Kan. 923, 925, 189 P.3d 491 (2008). If the notice of appeal is filed prematurely, it lies dormant until final judgment is pronounced from the bench. State v. Reed, 302 Kan. 390, 397, 352 P.3d 1043 (2015).

The State's objection is incorrect. We do have jurisdiction to hear Kinnaird's appeal.

Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports the district court's verdict.

Kinnaird's only issue on appeal is his complaint that there was insufficient evidence before the district court to support a conviction for criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

“ ‘When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or pass on the credibility of witnesses.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Mendez, 319 Kan. 718, 723, 559 P.3d 792 (2024).

Circumstantial evidence can support a conviction of even the greatest offense if the evidence allows a factfinder to find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. To sufficiently support the conviction, circumstantial evidence does not need to exclude every other reasonable conclusion. State v. Barnes, 320 Kan. 147, 177-78, 563 P.3d 1255 (2025); see also State v. Valdez, 316 Kan. 1, 12, 512 P.3d 1125 (2022) (circumstances utilized to infer guilt must be proved and cannot be inferred or presumed from other circumstances).

Analysis

Kansas law defines criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon as “possession of any weapon by a person who ․ [h]as been convicted of a person felony ․ under the laws of Kansas or a crime under the law of another jurisdiction which is substantially the same as such person felony.” K.S.A. 21-6304(a)(2)(A)(i).

Possession is defined as “knowingly having joint or exclusive control over an item or knowingly keeping some item in a place where the person has some measure of access and right of control.” K.S.A. 21-5111(v).

A panel of our court has considered whether circumstantial evidence could sufficiently support a conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm. See State v. Albright, No. 125,866, 2024 WL 1827294 (Kan. App. 2024) (unpublished opinion). Albright had been convicted of aggravated battery and was prohibited from possessing firearms. While on postrelease supervision, Albright lived at his grandmother's apartment. Albright slept in the living room, next to his grandmother's recliner. Police officers performed a search of the premises upon his postrelease supervising officer's request. Officers found a firearm in the recliner in the apartment's living room. A jury subsequently found Albright guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm.

On appeal, Albright challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. This court held: “There was credible circumstantial evidence to support a guilty verdict, although we wouldn't characterize the record as strong or overwhelming.” 2024 WL 1827294, at *5. The circumstantial evidence included that the firearm was found in the recliner next to where Albright slept, the firearm's box was found among Albright's belongings, and this box contained some of Albright's personal items. Albright's grandmother testified that the firearm belonged to her; she, however, told officers she did not know who gave her the firearm, and at trial she testified that her daughter gave her the firearm. This court noted these discrepancies would have been considered by the jury in weighing her credibility. The court found that the circumstantial evidence paired with witness credibility determination could sufficiently support the jury's verdict. 2024 WL 1827294, at *5-6.

Other unpublished decisions of our court have considered the sufficiency of evidence to support criminal possession of a firearm. In State v. Pugh, No. 120,929, 2021 WL 218900, at *3 (Kan. App. 2021) (unpublished opinion), the panel held:

“To prove constructive possession it must be shown that a defendant maintained an item in a place over which he or she has some measure of access and right of control. The defendant's mere presence or access to the item is insufficient. Courts look to circumstantial evidence to evaluate constructive possession. [Citations omitted.]”

Kinnaird argues the State failed to establish whether he had access and right of control to the hotel room where officers found him. Thus, he contends, the State failed to establish whether he had joint or constructive possession of the handgun found in that same hotel room. Assuming Kinnaird's access to or control of the hotel room was in dispute—in addition to his control of or access to the handgun—we find the point unpersuasive given the evidence.

Here, Kinnaird had access to the handgun because he admitted to officers that his DNA was on it. We also conclude Kinnaird had access to the hotel room, since that is where he was found by officers before being taken into custody. Officer Hornberger testified that Kinnaird was seated on the same couch where the firearm was found. Kinnaird was also alone in the hotel room when officers found him. A factfinder could reasonably conclude that this evidence shows that Kinnaird was not merely present but had a right of control of the room, as well as access to the handgun. The evidence in its totality is sufficient to support Kinnaird's conviction.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: