No. 23-126421-A / No.

23-126422-A
(consolidated)
_________________________
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF KANSAS
_______
STATE OF KANSAS
Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
Joseph N. Tallie
Defendant-Appellant
_______
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT JOSEPH TALLIE
_______
Appeal from the District Court Crawford County, Kansas
Honorable Richard B. Walker, Senior Judge
District Court Case No. 18CR30G & 18CR111G
_______

Joseph N. Tallie
1015 S. Saint Louis Ave., Apt 7
Joplin, MO 64801

Appellant

Oral Argument 15 minutes

Table of Contents
Nature of the Case ................................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Issue .......................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Facts .......................................................................................................... 1
Arguments and Authorities ...............................................................,,................................... 9
Issue 1: Tallie's due process rights were violated throughout the delay of the probation
revocations, with which the State abandoned prosecution and the court lost
jurisdiction................................................................................................................................ 9
State of Kansas vs. Russell Hoffman (No. 103,133) ..................................................... 10
K.S.A 22-3716(b)(2) ................................................................................................... 10
State v. McMurry, 279 Kan 118, 121, 105 P.3d 1247 (2005) ……………………………10
State v. Haines, 30 Kan. App. 2d 110, 112, 39 P.3 95, rev. denied 273 Kan. 1038 (2002)
..................................................................................................................................................10
State v. Myers, 178 P. 3d 77 (Kan. App 2008)........................................................... .10
287 Kan. at 144-45 195 P.3d
220……………………support…………………............................ 11
Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 4 (1915) ................................................................... 11
State v. Williams, 20 Kan. App. 2d 142, 20 P.3d99 (Kan. App. 1994).......................... 11
State v. Curtis 209 P.3d 753, 42 Kan. App. 2d 132 (Kan. App. 2009)........................... 11
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)............................................................................ 11
State v. Clopton. 57 P.3d 21, 30 Kan. App. 2, 30 Kan. App 2d 1208 (Kan. Ct. App.
2002). ……..……………………………………………………………………………………12
Barker Test………………………………………………………….…………………..12
Issue 2: Tallies new probation sentence was an illegal term…………………………………14
State v. Claiborne, 315 Kan. 399, 400, 508 P.3d 1286 (2022)..........................................14

Prayer…………………………………………………………………………………. 15

Certificate of Service………………………………………………………………….. 16

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 0

 Nature of the Case

The Defendant appeals the district court's revocation of his probation and the sentences

imposed thereafter. Tallie argues that his due process rights were violated and that the court was

without jurisdiction.

Statement of Issues

1. Tallie's due process rights were violated throughout the delay of the probation
revocations, with which the State abandoned prosecution, and the court lost jurisdiction.
2. Tallie's extended probation term was an illegal sentence, even if his probation was
lawfully revoked.
Statement of Facts

*Citations should refer to 22-126422-A table of contents, although this appeal applies to both cases.

On November 26, 2019, the Appellant (“Tallie,” hereafter) pleaded no contest in

18-CR-30-G for possessing cocaine and interfering with law enforcement and in 18-CR-111-G

for possessing drug paraphernalia. (R. VII: 7-8, 19-20).

On January 17, 2020, the district court sentenced Mr. Tallie in Case Number

18-CR-30-G to a controlling sentence of 17 months in prison and six months in jail; they

suspended that sentence and placed him on 12 months probation, requiring that he pay $1,158 in

court costs and complete 50 hours community service. (R. VIII: 19-20). The Court thereafter

sentenced Mr. Tallie in Case Number 18-CR-111-G to 17 months in prison but suspended that

sentence and placed him on probation for 12 months, requiring that he pay $1,058 and complete

50 hours of community service. (R. VIII: 6). The District Court ran the 12-month probation

terms concurrently. (R. VIII: 6). Mr. Tallie's 12-month probation term began on March 6, 2020.

(R. II: 176-177).

The tortuous procedural history of this matter on appeal began on July 13, 2020, when

the State filed a motion to revoke Mr. Tallie's probation in 18-CR-30-G and 18-CR-111-G after

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 1

he was charged in a new case, Case Number 20-CR-130-G, on allegations of possessing cocaine,

criminal possession of a firearm, criminal use of a weapon, and possession of marijuana. (R. II: 41).

The court gave Mr. Tallie a combined bond of $50,000, with the condition that he remain

on house arrest with GPS monitoring with specific orders to commerce and be monitored by

Green Feather Bail Bonds. (R. II: 179-180, 188-189, 217-218, 235-236; R. III: 15-16, 19-20,

27-28, 39-40). Mr. Tallie filed several motions for bond reduction, declared his innocence, and

demanded a jury trial (R. II: 207-208, 219-220, 224-225; R. III: 31-32), but the State firmly

opposed his attempts (R. II: 209-212, 226-229; R. III: 33-36). Tallie submitted a handwritten

letter to the Court on 9/9/2020 challenging the constitutionality of Crawford County's delay in

preliminary examinations. (R. III: 3-9).

On October 13, 2020, the State held a preliminary hearing on the charges in the new

case, 20-CR-130-G. (R. VI, generally). The State called witnesses, and Mr. Tallie was present

and represented himself. (R. VI). After hearing evidence, the Court bound Mr. Tallie over for

possession of cocaine, criminal use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm. (R. VI:

55-56). The details establishing probable cause in the new case were identical to the allegations

in the State’s Motion to Revoke [Tallie’s] Probation. Still, the State chose not to pursue

revocation of Mr. Tallie's probation. (R. VI: 57-58). Instead, the State asked that the probation

cases be set for a status conference (R. VI: 57-58), prolonging the uncertainty and stress upon

Mr. Tallie.

In mid-October 2020, Tallie was placed on house arrest with GPS ankle monitoring

costing $77 a week as a condition of his OR bond (R. III: 44-45). Tallie sought to amend the

conditions of house arrest and GPS monitoring due to his need for exercise and, among other

things, his responsibility to walk his dog, which had been his dog for several years. (R. III:

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 2

55-57). The State opposed Tallie's request. (R. III: 58). Later, in December 2020, after hearing

Tallie's motion to amend his conditions of bond, the district judge Brunetti stated, "Maybe you

should give that dog away..." (R. XXVI: 25). Tallie was disheartened by the Judges advice to

abandon his support animal. Tallie remained on house arrest.

The State filed several amended applications to revoke probation.

On November 10, 2020, the State filed an amended application to revoke Tallie's

probation (R. III: 66).

On December 9, 2020, the State filed a second amended application to revoke Tallie's

probation (R. III: 70).

On December 23, 2020, the State filed a third amended application to revoke Tallie's

probation (R. III: 81). Consequently, Tallie was arrested the day before Christmas Eve and was

held without bond nor probable cause hearing. (R. III: 82-83). On January 13th, 2021, the court

conducted a hearing regarding the alleged house arrest violations, but the court did not address

the issues for probation revocation. The court found that Tallie had violated his bond conditions

by violating the house arrest order and then placed him back on bond supervision. (R. IX:

Generally). Tallie was released from jail on January 14, 2021, with the same previous bond

conditions, including house arrest with GPS monitoring (R. III: 90-93).

Tallie was released from house arrest after his probation cases were scheduled to expire.

Tallie's terms on probation expired on or before March 6, 2021 [unsure if 12 months

probation is 365 days or 360 days] (R. II: 176-177). On March 8, 2021, Tallie submitted a

motion to do away with the conditions of house arrest after he paid off the total of $2,216

ordered in his probation cases, he completed the required 100 hours of community service, he

obtained a job working 50+ hours a week, and he was enrolled full time in college. (R. III:

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 3

102-104). The State conceded that Mr. Tallie should be released from house arrest (R. III:

122-124). Tallie was finally released from house arrest on April 28, 2021 (R. III: 134-136), but

not before being told by the district judge, "I am not interested if you feel overwhelmed; if you

feel pressure, that is your reality…" and "you have a mother or a father. I don't care quite

frankly." (R. XI: 7) the Judge’s comments offended, intimidated, and disheartened Tallie.

From then on, the cases continued to drag on while Mr. Tallie attended every court date.

On October 28, 2021, a new prosecutor named Ethan Manke submitted a motion to

revoke Tallie's bond without making an entry of appearance (R. III: 156). The previous

prosecutor did not file any motions to withdraw.

Tallie was arrested for the alleged bond violations on November 12, 2021. He was held

in the county jail without a probable cause hearing (R. III: 160).

On December 21, 2021, Mr. Tallie was released from jail and placed back on house

arrest. (R. III: 183-185). Mr. Tallie had been coerced into a house arrest agreement as a condition

of bond, his only alternative being to sit in jail during Christmas (again). This coercion was

orchestrated by his court-appointed lawyer, Brian Duncan, who claimed to be under the influence

of the judge and prosecutor. Mr. Tallie asserts that every court-appointed lawyer he has ever

encountered in that District’s Judicial System has lied to him about the law and the rights

available to him.

On January 4, 2022, District Judge Brunetti recused herself from Tallie's cases without

explanation. (R. III, 186-187).

The Supreme Court then assigned a new judge to these cases on January 26, 2022. (R.

III 190).

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 4

 On April 4, 2022, Tallie requested a release from house arrest. (R. IV: 8-9). A hearing

was held on April 8, 2022 (R. XVIII, in general) in which Tallie informed the Court: "I am not

sure if you are... aware but… I asked for a preliminary examination and a trial [21 months ago]. I

have spent six months incarcerated and ten months on house arrest… and I have paid thousands

of dollars on house monitoring fees... I have not been offered a speedy trial, Your Honor. And I

still stand that I am not guilty…" (R. XVIII: 6-7), "I am just worried about my civil rights, is all."

(R. XVIII: 7), "I don't want to take a plea deal… I keep trying to tell everybody for the past two

years… [T]hat I want to stand on my rights, Your Honor, because [they] have been violated

multiple times in multiple ways." (R. XVIII: 8). Tallie remained on house arrest.

On April 18, 2022, Tallie complained about the State and District Court violating his due

process rights. (R. IV: 13-15).

The State moved to revoke Tallie's bond on April 23, 2022. (R. IV: 26).

On June 16, 2022, Tallie submitted a motion to dismiss the pending cases against him

due to the numerous constitutional and statutory violations made throughout the process. (R. IV:

54-75).

Tallie Spends the next 9 months

Talie was arrested on June 22nd, 2022. (R. IV, 133-136). Tallie’s bond was revoked

without a probable cause hearing. Tallie was charged in a new case for allegedly interfering with

law enforcement, but this case was quickly dismissed at a preliminary examination.

(CRG-22-CR-208)

On that same day, the Supreme Court assigned a third and final judge, Richard B. Walker,

to Tallie's cases (R. IV: 132).

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 5

 As Judge Walker lamented in July 2022, having new judges and a new prosecutor on the

case created continuity problems. (R. VI: 159). This hindered the judge's and prosecutors'

understanding of what had happened earlier in the cases. (R. VI: 159). This led to delays as the

newcomers tried to understand the case's procedural history. (R. VI: 159). Judge Walker

rescheduled the trial over Tallie’s objection. Judge Walker set Mr. Tallie’s bond to $25,000 for

18CR111G, $25,000 for 18CR30G, and $50,000 for 20CR130G, for a combined amount of

$100,000 with the condition being that he be on house arrest with GPS monitoring through

Green feather monitoring, costing $77 a week. (R. IV: 178). It should be noted that Tallie was on

probation and awaiting trial for victimless accusations, and he had never failed to appear in

court.

On July 27, 2022, Mr. Tallie filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, stating that he

was being picked on, targeted, and oppressed without due process. He indicated his bond amount

was excessive and his conditions were unreasonable. (CRG-2022-CV-77).

On August 1st, 2022, after Mr. Tallie’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was

dismissed, district judge Richard B. Walker stated, “The Attorney General’s office has been in

contact with me. They indicated that I should do nothing more [in 18cr30g, 18cr111g, and

20cr130g] until this case[, CRG-2022-CV-77,] is resolved.” (R. XX: 3) Judge Walker said

further, “I just became aware of this last week. I actually was prepared to send out rulings on

everything I had already heard. And then, of course, we had today scheduled[, the probable cause

hearing to revoke Tallie’s bond], but when Mr. Tallie filed his 60-1501 civil action, essentially

that put into question my participation in his cases, whether or not the Supreme Court would

need to assign somebody else in.” (R. XX: 3-4). Mr. Tallie stood in shackles, his whole life in

shambles due to the prosecution of these cases, as Judge Walker spoke with a smirk on his face.

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 6

Mr. Tallie felt like a mockery (personal recollection). Judge Walker went on to explain that

although Mr. Tallie’s petition for writ of Habeas Corpus was already dismissed, “I had no idea

when that was going to occur, and so, because of that, I wasn’t sure whether we were going to be

able to go ahead.” (R. XX: 4). Judge Walker acknowledged Mr. Tallie’s objection and stated “the

fact of the matter is that the delay was caused by the filing of the 60-1501 action by Mr. Tallie,

which put a halt, at least temporarily, to my participation.” (R. XX: 5).

On August 22, 2022, Tallie submitted a notice of undue hardships to the courts,

addressing the prejudice he had endured during and due to the delayed prosecution against him.

(R. IV: 266-269).

On August 30, 2022, Mr. Tallie filed a motion to dismiss the probation allegations,

arguing that the State was not acting "without unnecessary delay, as required by the Kansas

Statutes and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution." (R. IV: 270-272). The

district court denied his motions, it's only reason being that the State’s motions to revoke "have

been pending.” (R. XXI: 13). Mr. Tallie asserts that the Court’s reasoning was inconclusive. The

District Court further held that "no speedy trial provisions apply to probation violation matters so

long as the motion was filed in a timely manner under Kansas law." (R. XXI: 108), but Mr.

Tallie’s argument regarding these probationary matters was solely Constitutional due process

violations.

That same day, the district court held a bifurcated hearing on the alleged probation

violations. Instead of using the most recently filed motion(s) to revoke Tallie’s probation from

December 2020, the government chose to use the original motion to revoke that they filed in July

2020. (R. XXI, XXII generally). On September 29, 2022, after hearing final evidence, the

district court recognized that the State alleged two violations: that Mr. Tallie committed a new

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 7

crime, specifically possession of cocaine and possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and that he

changed residence without notice. (R. XXIII: 104). Mr. Tallie made several evidentiary

objections, but they were overruled. He declined to testify on his own behalf to save his defense

for the pending trial.

At the hearing, the district court found that the State had proven, by a preponderance of

the evidence, that Mr. Tallie had committed new crimes and had changed residence without

notifying his probation officer. (R. XXII: 112). After declaring Mr. Tallie’s probation to be

revoked, the district court refused to enter an order on disposition, preferring to wait until a jury

had determined whether he was guilty of the charges in case 20-CR-130-G, which mirrored the

allegations in Mr. Tallies probation revocation. (R. XXIII: 76-77).

On November 9, 2022, Mr. Tallie filed a new motion to dismiss the probation cases due

to violating his due process rights and the State abandoning their original petition to revoke. (R.

IV: 330-337).

On February 3, 2023, two and half years after the State alleged Mr. Tallie had committed

the new crimes in 20CR130G, a jury found Mr. Tallie NOT GUILTY on all charges in

20CR130G. (R.XXV: 6). Despite the NOT GUILTY verdict, the district court ordered Mr. Tallie

to serve an additional three days in jail, followed by a renewed 12-month term on probation in

18-CR-30-G and 18-CR-111-G. (R. XXV: 7). At that point, Mr. Tallie had already served a year

in jail and a year on house arrest, spending over $3000 on house arrest fees. He also spent his

entire time outside of jail on bond supervision with frequent drug tests and office visits. (R. IV:

generally).

Tallie’s new probation term was then calculated to expire in 2024, three years after his

original terms were supposed to expire. In the journal entry revoking his probation, Judge Walker

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 8

stated, "Assignment to conservation camp was considered.” (Revocation Journal Entry, Section

IV, subsection 4, filed 2/22/2023 ) (R. IV, 384). This statement was “signed” and approved by

prosecutor Ethan Manke and standby counsel (assigned spy) Heather Bornstein. (IV, 386)

Mr. Tallie appeals

PROMISE: I Certify that the foregoing facts are true and accurate: /s/ _Joseph Tallie______

Arguments and Authorities

Issue 1: Tallie's due process rights were violated throughout the delay of the

probation revocations, by which the State abandoned prosecution and

the court lost jurisdiction.

Preservation of the Issue

During the process of his probation revocation, Tallie consistently complained about the

lack of care and urgency in providing him with due process and the prejudice he endured in that

timeframe. He asked the district court to dismiss his probation violations multiple times, alleging

that the government violated his rights under the Kansas Statutes and the Due Process Clause.

(R. IV: 54-75) (R. III: 250-52) (R. IV: 330-337).

The issue was preserved for appeal.

Standard of Review

“An appellate court considering whether a district court complied with [] due process

requirements applies an unlimited standard of review.” Hall, 287 Kan. at 143. “Whether a district

court has jurisdiction to revoke probation is a question of law over which an appellate court

exercises unlimited review.” State of Kansas vs. Russell Hoffman (No. 103,133).

Analysis

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 9

 Mr. Tallie is actually innocent of the allegations in 2020CR130G, of which he was

acquitted. As previously stated and cited, Mr. Tallie’s probation should have expired in 2021

because the State chose not to pursue prosecution against him in a timely manner, and the court

held disposition of his probation cases at a standard of little importance. The statutory provisions

for revoking probation fall under K.S.A 22-3716(b)(2), which provides that “[u]nless the

defendant… waives such hearing, the court shall cause the defendant to be brought before it without

unnecessary delay for a hearing on the violation charged.” Shall is a binding word. The Supreme

Court has stated, “A criminal statute must be strictly construed in favor of the accused, which simply

means that words are given their ordinary meaning. Any reasonable doubt about the meaning is

denied in favor to anyone subjected to the criminal statute.” State v. McMurry, 279 Kan 118, 121,

105 P.3d 1247 (2005). Mr. Tallie never waived his rights to a prompt hearing, so he should have been

brought to a hearing without such an extraneous delay. The court's jurisdiction to act after filing a

motion to revoke is “not without limit.” State v. Haines, 30 Kan. App. 2d 110, 112, 39 P.3 95,

rev. denied 273 Kan. 1038 (2002). “Clearly, the State is required to proceed in a timely and

reasonable manner to meet the requirements of due process.” State v. Myers, 178 P. 3d 77 (Kan.

App. 2008).

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that no person can be

deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The failure to act in a timely and

reasonable manner may divest the district court of jurisdiction to revoke probation if there is an

unreasonable delay, which the circumstances of each case must determine. 287 Kan. at 144-45

195 P.3d 220. Statutory provisions are seen as due process because they define relations between

citizens and the government that citizens are entitled to keep unless there is a reason to take them

away. “Kansas statute does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment but seeks further to guarantee

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 10

and protect the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.” Coppage v. Kansas,

236 U.S. 1, 4 (1915).

The State asserted there was no time limit to revoke Tallie’s probation as long as the

application was submitted promptly. Their argument is flawed because, in 1991, the Court of

Appeals was “unimpressed with the States' argument that ‘KSA 22-3716 sets no time limitations

on pleading particular types of allegations.” State v. Williams, 20 Kan. App. 2d 142, 20 P.3d99

(Kan. App. 1994). When “[t]he State failed to act in a timely and reasonable manner to revoke

his probation,” it “violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution.”State v. Curtis 209 P.3d 753, 42 Kan. App. 2d 132

(Kan. App. 2009). In Curtis, the Appellate Court determined that the delay between the arrest for

illegal activity on January 5th, 2006, and the revocation of his probation on October 1st, 2007– a

total of 21 months– was unreasonable where the terms of probation expired 11 months before it

was revoked. Tallie’s case was even worse than Curtis's because there was a total delay of 31

months in revoking Tallie's probation. Tallie’s terms on probation were revoked 23 months after

they expired– 31 months after the State’s original motion to revoke was filed.

When discussing whether or not the delay has prejudiced the defendant, Kansas has

adopted the Barker test, which weighs the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the

defendant's assertion of his rights, and prejudice to the defendant. see Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S.

514 (1972). “Discussion of the prejudice prong of the Barker test applies equally in discussion of

due process violation.” State v. Clopton. 57 P.3d 21, 30 Kan. App. 2, 30 Kan. App 2d 1208 (Kan.

Ct. App. 2002).

When applying the Barker test to Tallie’s case, we get the following results;

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 11

 a) Length of Delay—The district court reached adjudication of Tallie’s probation

cases 31 months after the State submitted its original motion to revoke and 23

months after the probation cases had already expired.

b) Reason for delay- Tallie denies being the cause of any of the delays and disagrees

with the opinion that COVID-19 is a reasonable excuse for the delay. Tallie does

not know why it took so long to revoke his probation or to get to trial on the new

case, and he asserts there is no reasonable justification for it. Another reason for

the delay was that the Kansas Attorney General apparently ordered Judge Walker

to delay the court proceedings because of Tallie’s habeas corpus petition. (R. XX:

3). Tallie asserts that this violated his rights to have a non-biased and detached

judge who does not participate in ex-parte communication. The Attorney General

represents the same corporation that was prosecuting Mr. Tallie, so they had no

business discussing Tallie’s case with or advising the presiding judge.

c) Defendant’s assertion of his rights- Mr. Tallie asserted his rights by requesting

multiple bond reductions and modifications (R. II: 207-208, 219-220, 224-225)(

R. III: 31-32)(R. III: 3-9)(R. III: 102-104)(R. XVIII: 6-7); requesting a speedy

trial in the new criminal case, 2020-CR-130-G, in which he was acquitted; by

reporting to the court about all his suffering (R. IV: 13-15) (R. IV: 266-269); and

requesting the dismissal of the cases multiple times. (R. IV: 54-75)(R. III:

250-52) (R. IV: 330-337).

d) Prejudice to the defendant- As supported in the Statement of Facts: Throughout

the delay of the revocation process, the State, with the assistance of the sheriff and

the district court, caused Mr. Tallie to go to jail numerous times without probable

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 12

 cause hearings, forced him to drop out of college and lose out on multiple jobs

and financial opportunities; led him to have a devastated credit score with

accumulated debt he cannot easily get out of; interfered with his ability to

maintain and develop meaningful relationships; and, inter alia, distorted his

mental-stability and emotional-tranquility to a point of considering self-harm.

Tallie spent a year in jail and a year on house arrest with $3000 in GPS

monitoring fees pending the disposition of his probation cases.

Furthermore, the State abandoned its original petition to revoke Tallie’s probation when

they submitted three subsequent motions to revoke his probation. The first amended motion to

revoke Tallie’s probation was submitted on November 10, 2020 (R. III: 66), and the State used

house arrest violations as reasons for revoking Tallie’s probation.

A second amended motion to revoke Tallie’s probation was filed on December 9th,

2020, in which the State completely abandoned the original allegations listed in the original

motions (R. III: 70).

On December 23rd, 2020, the State submitted a third and final amended application to

revoke Tallie's probation (R. III: 81). This hearing was conducted on January 13th, 2021 (R. III:

86-87). The court found that Mr. Tallie had committed the violations accused in the State's third

amended motion to revoke Tallie’s probation. Still, the court treated those violations as bond

rather than probation violations (R. IX, generally).

At that point, the State had ample opportunity to pursue the original revocation of Tallie’s

probation, but they chose not to. Instead, they released him from house arrest after he paid all his

court costs, completed all of his community services, obtained a full-time job, and became a

full-time student. The prosecuting attorney, Christina Lloyd, did not seek further prosecution, nor

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 13

did she withdraw as the prosecutor. The remainder of the case was prosecuted by some man

called “Ethan Manke,” who never made an entry of appearance. This court should deem the State

to have abandoned prosecution, that Tallie’s due process rights were violated, and that the district

court lost jurisdiction over Tallie’s probation cases.

Issue 2: Tallie's new probation sentence was illegal.

Preservation of Issue:

“A defendant may file a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22

- 3504(a) in an appellate court while on direct appeal.” State of Kansas v. Justin Steinert, No.

122,418 (2023)

Standard of Review:

"Whether a sentence is illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 22-3504 is a question of law

over which the appellate court has unlimited review." State v. Claiborne, 315 Kan. 399, 400, 508

P.3d 1286 (2022).

Argument:

Even if the Appellate Court finds that Mr. Tallie’s probation was rightfully revoked 31

months after the motion to revoke was filed, it should still be found obvious that Mr. Tallie was

placed on an illegal sentence thereafter. Tallie’s probation terms began on March 6th, 2020, and

were to last for 12 months. (R. VIII: 6, 19-20). This would have made his probation expire on

March 6th, 2021. But after he won his trial in 20CR130G by representing himself, in February

2023, the court ordered him to serve an additional 3 days in jail followed by another 12 months

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 14

on probation. (R. XXVI: 7) Mr. Tallie asserts that a 12-month extension on his probation would

have caused his probation to expire on or before March 2022 rather than the year of 2024. He

also asserts that the 3 days in jail was unjustified after he had already served more than a year in

jail and a year on house arrest.

Prayer:

Wherefore, to administer true justice and to reprimand the district court for mistreating a member
of The People, to uphold Tallie’s statutory right to expunge his convictions without delay after
the specified time from the date his probation was supposed to expire, and to proclaim the
suffered violations so that Tallie may seek some form of remedy or peace of mind, and to deter
future offenses by the district courts in this state, this Court of Appeals should proclaim that
Tallie’s due process rights were violated, the state abandoned prosecution, and the District Court
lost jurisdiction over Mr. Tallie’s probation cases. Those probation cases (18CR30G and
18CR111G) should be deemed “terminated” as of or before March 6th, 2021, for purposes of
expungement.
In the lesser alternative, this court should deem Tallie’s new probation sentences unlawful
and violative of due process and equal treatment under the law because the court extended
Tallie’s probation by one year, which would extend the probation cases into the year 2022. Still,
the court placed the expiration of his probation into the year 2023. This delay postponed his
ability to expunge his convictions, violating his rights to equal treatment under the law and every
other right that a juris doctor should know to add in support of Tallie’s claims.
Submitted by: _______________________

Joseph Tallie
xxx-xxx-xxxx
[email protected]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Joplin MO 64801

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 15

Certificate of Service

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant’s Supplemental Brief

was served on the Crawford County Attorney by mailing to 111 E Forest Street, Suit A, Girard,

Kansas 66743, a courtesy copy emailed at [email protected] and served on

the Attorney General by mail to 120 SW 10th Ave., 2nd Floor Topeka, KS 66612, courtesy copy

emailed at [email protected], on the 22nd day of October 2024.

X.__________________________

Joseph N. Tallie, Appellant

Xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

Tallie 23-126431-A Supplemental Brief 16