Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves Patricio Sabas Gomez, who was convicted of first-degree felony murder, attempted distribution of methamphetamine, and criminal possession of a weapon. The incident occurred on September 30, 2021, when Danielle Hampton called 911 to report that her boyfriend, Michael Martinez, had been shot at a hotel in Wichita. Martinez was found dead with gunshot wounds, and methamphetamine was discovered in the room. Gomez and Shae Roberts were implicated in a drug deal gone wrong, leading to Martinez's death. Gomez was charged with felony murder, attempted distribution of methamphetamine, attempted aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon.The Sedgwick District Court found Gomez guilty of first-degree felony murder and attempted distribution of methamphetamine but acquitted him of attempted aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 620 months, concurrent with a 78-month term for attempted distribution of methamphetamine and an 8-month term for criminal possession of a weapon. Gomez appealed his convictions, arguing insufficient evidence for the felony-murder conviction and the attempted distribution of methamphetamine, and claimed his sentence for the latter was illegal.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case, affirming Gomez's convictions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the felony-murder conviction based on attempted distribution of methamphetamine and attempted aggravated robbery. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for attempted distribution of methamphetamine. However, the court agreed that the 78-month sentence for attempted distribution of methamphetamine was illegal, as it exceeded the statutory maximum. Consequently, the court vacated that portion of Gomez's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "State v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Brenton S. Cook fired three shots and killed Dean Endsley in Endsley's Salina residence while attempting to collect on a drug debt. A jury convicted Cook of premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and criminal possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Cook to a hard 25 life sentence for premeditated first-degree murder, plus 60 months on the remaining counts. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal.Cook later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his convictions were multiplicitous and violated the double jeopardy clause because insufficient time passed for him to form the required mental state to premeditate murder. He requested a new trial or resentencing. The State responded that Cook's arguments focused on his convictions rather than his sentences and that he failed to address the statutory definition of an illegal sentence. The Saline District Court agreed with the State, noting that Cook did not challenge the legality of his sentence under the statutory definition and characterized his motion as complaining of trial errors that should have been asserted in his direct appeal. The district court also concluded that Cook's claims were barred under res judicata principles.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The court found that Cook's arguments did not suggest his sentences fell under the statutory definition of an illegal sentence. Cook did not argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that the sentence was ambiguous, or that it did not conform to the applicable statutory provisions defining the crime, assigning the punishment, or involving the criminal history classification. The court concluded that Cook's motion did not properly invoke an applicable statutory provision that might afford him relief under the illegal sentence statute, K.S.A. 22-3504. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Cook's motion. View "State v. Cook" on Justia Law

POM of Kansas, LLC, owns and distributes Dragon's Ascent, an arcade game where players shoot dragons for prizes redeemable for cash. Concerned about the game's legality under Kansas law, POM sought approval from state agencies, which declined to provide a formal opinion. POM proceeded with the game's launch and filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act does not apply to Dragon's Ascent, that the game complies with Kansas' criminal gambling statutes, and that those statutes are unconstitutionally vague.The Shawnee District Court dismissed the claims against the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission and the Douglas County District Attorney, ruling that no real controversy existed as neither had investigated the game nor threatened prosecution. The court retained the Kansas Attorney General in the case due to the constitutional challenges raised. The district court later dismissed POM's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and ruled against the constitutional challenges on the merits.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the issue of standing. The court held that POM lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment about the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act because no defendant suggested the Act applied to Dragon's Ascent. The court also found that POM lacked standing to seek a declaration that Dragon's Ascent is lawful under Kansas criminal gambling statutes, as there was no credible threat of prosecution or seizure of the devices. Finally, the court concluded that POM lacked standing to raise a constitutional vagueness challenge to the gambling statutes, as there was no credible threat of prosecution.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of POM's claims regarding the Expanded Lottery Act and the legality of Dragon's Ascent, vacated the ruling on the constitutional vagueness challenge, and remanded the matter for dismissal. View "POM of Kansas v. Kobach" on Justia Law

A prolonged legal battle ensued between divorced paternal grandparents, each seeking to adopt their grandson, E.A. The boy lived with his grandfather for his first six years until 2019, when his grandmother and her husband took him under false pretenses and initiated an adoption proceeding. The grandfather attempted to intervene in the adoption but was denied "party in interest" status. He also filed an unsuccessful paternity case, claiming he was the boy's presumed father under the Kansas Parentage Act. The adoption court awarded the boy to the grandmother and her husband, and three years later, the court reaffirmed its decision, denying the grandfather's motion to intervene.The grandfather appealed both district court rulings. One Court of Appeals panel denied him relief in the parentage case, while another panel reversed the adoption court's decision, allowing the grandfather to present his case as an interested party. The losing sides sought review in each case.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the cases and reversed the parentage panel's decision while affirming the adoption panel's decision. The court held that the grandfather pled sufficient facts to advance a colorable party-in-interest claim in the adoption proceeding and to prosecute his parentage claim. The court emphasized that the grandfather should have been allowed to intervene in the adoption case to address the competing interests adequately.The Kansas Supreme Court remanded the parentage case to the district court to be consolidated with the adoption case, which was also remanded for further proceedings. The adoption decree was vacated, and the case was directed to return to its status as of May 31, 2019, with the understanding that temporary custody may be reconsidered to determine the boy's best interests. View "In re Parentage of E.A." on Justia Law

Matthew Munoz, while held in the Mitchell County jail, attempted to invoke the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (MDDA) to address a pending theft charge in McPherson County. Munoz filed the request with the McPherson County District Court, but the Secretary of Corrections did not receive notice or issue a statutory certificate. The McPherson County Attorney, however, did have actual notice of the filing. The theft charge was not brought to trial within the 180-day period prescribed by the MDDA.The McPherson District Court ruled in favor of Munoz, finding that he had substantially complied with the MDDA and that the State was time-barred from prosecuting the theft charge. The State appealed this decision. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that there was insufficient evidence to show Munoz was in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) when he filed his MDDA request and that actual notice to the McPherson County Attorney did not constitute substantial compliance.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeals. The court held that Munoz did not substantially comply with the MDDA because the Secretary of Corrections never received his request, and thus, the statutory 180-day clock never began to run. The court emphasized that the MDDA's requirements must be strictly followed unless prison officials' actions prevent compliance, which was not the case here. Consequently, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, reversed the district court's ruling, and remanded the case with directions to reinstate the theft charge against Munoz. View "State v. Munoz" on Justia Law

The case involves Francisco Alejandro Mendez, who was charged with multiple crimes following a crime spree in Topeka, Kansas, in April 2019. Mendez and his accomplices stole a car at gunpoint, shot at a group of Washburn University students, killing one, and robbed several people at gunpoint. Mendez was convicted by a jury of premeditated first-degree murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and aggravated robbery.The Shawnee District Court sentenced Mendez to a life sentence plus 492 months in prison. Mendez appealed, raising nine claims of error, including insufficient evidence of premeditation, erroneous jury instructions, unconstitutional vagueness of the premeditated murder statute, insufficient evidence for some aggravated robbery convictions, multiplicity of charges, denial of a motion to suppress, prosecutorial error, erroneous jury instructions on "knowingly," and cumulative error.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. It found sufficient evidence to support the premeditation finding, noting that the time between the initial encounter and the shooting was enough for Mendez to form premeditation. The court also found that the aiding and abetting instruction, while legally inappropriate, was not clearly erroneous. The court declined to address the constitutionality of the premeditated murder statute as it was not raised in the lower court.The court reversed three of Mendez's aggravated robbery convictions due to insufficient evidence, as there was no proof that property was taken from those victims. However, it upheld the conviction for the aggravated robbery of Clark, finding that as a passenger, he had possession and control of the car. The court also found that the traffic stop leading to Mendez's arrest was lawful and that the prosecutorial error in stating premeditation could be formed in one second was harmless. The court concluded that the cumulative error doctrine did not apply as only one error was identified.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Mendez's convictions for premeditated first-degree murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and the remaining aggravated robbery convictions, while reversing three aggravated robbery convictions. View "State v. Mendez" on Justia Law

Patricia Nicholson filed a garnishment action after her husband was killed in an accident involving Ava Mercer, who was insured by Key Insurance Company. Key provided Mercer with an attorney but did not actively defend her. Nicholson attempted to settle for the policy limit, but Key delayed. Nicholson then filed a wrongful death suit, and Key offered to settle for the policy limit, which Nicholson rejected. Instead, Nicholson and Mercer agreed that Mercer would assign her rights to sue Key for bad faith to Nicholson, and Nicholson would not execute any judgment against Mercer. Mercer waived her right to a jury trial and did not present a defense. Nicholson won a $3 million verdict.The Leavenworth District Court ruled against Key on the merits, finding that Key acted in bad faith and ordered garnishment for the $3 million judgment. Key did not argue that garnishment was statutorily unavailable due to the assignment of rights at the district court level. On appeal, Key raised the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction for the first time, arguing that garnishment was impossible following an assignment of rights, thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court clarified that subject-matter jurisdiction is the constitutional power of courts to decide disputes and does not disappear due to a flawed claim. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear Nicholson's garnishment action on the merits. The court emphasized that Key's statutory arguments should have been presented as a motion to dismiss at the district court level and could not be raised for the first time on appeal under the guise of a jurisdictional argument. The judgment of the Court of Appeals and the district court was affirmed. View "Nicholson v. Mercer" on Justia Law

In 2004, Jason Mashaney was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child, involving his then-five-year-old daughter. He was sentenced to 442 months in prison. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. In 2008, Mashaney filed a motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, which led to a reversal and remand for a full evidentiary hearing. The district court found substantial prejudice from ineffective representation, vacated the 2004 convictions, and scheduled a new trial. Subsequently, Mashaney entered an Alford plea to amended charges of attempted aggravated battery and aggravated endangerment of a child, resulting in a 72-month sentence and his release for time served.The Sedgwick District Court awarded Mashaney nearly $414,595 in damages for wrongful conviction and imprisonment under K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004. The court concluded that the original charges were "effectively dismissed" when the State amended them to nonsexual charges involving the same victim. The district court found that Mashaney met the statutory elements for compensation, including that his judgment of conviction was vacated and the charges were dismissed. The court calculated the damages based on the duration of wrongful imprisonment and reduced the award by the amount received from a legal malpractice settlement.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the phrase "the charges were dismissed" in K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(B) means both terminating the criminal accusation and relieving the defendant of criminal liability. The court found that the original charges against Mashaney were not dismissed but amended, and he incurred criminal liability for the amended charges. Therefore, Mashaney did not meet the statutory requirement that the charges were dismissed, and his claim for wrongful conviction and imprisonment failed. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Mashaney" on Justia Law

James A. Willis was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm. The incident occurred outside a nightclub in Overland Park, where Willis shot Jurl Carter multiple times as Carter was backing his car out of a parking lot. The chaotic scene involved numerous witnesses, some of whom provided inconsistent accounts. However, surveillance footage and witness testimonies generally supported the prosecution's narrative. Willis admitted to shooting Carter but claimed he acted in self-defense.The Johnson District Court, presided over by Judge Thomas Kelly Ryan, found Willis guilty on both counts. Willis was sentenced to a hard 50 life sentence for the murder conviction and an additional 19 months for the firearm conviction. Willis appealed, arguing prosecutorial misconduct and instructional errors, particularly regarding his self-defense claim.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Willis contended that the prosecutor improperly inferred motivations not supported by evidence and misstated the law on self-defense. The court found that the prosecutor's inferences about the culture of respect and retaliation were reasonable and within the wide latitude allowed. Additionally, the court determined that the prosecutor's statements about self-defense, when viewed in context, did not mislead the jury.Willis also argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The Kansas Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that such instructions would have been appropriate. However, the court concluded that the jury would not have reached a different verdict even if those instructions had been given.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Willis's convictions, finding no reversible error in the prosecutorial conduct or the jury instructions. View "State v. Willis" on Justia Law

In 2016, Louis Scherzer was fatally shot outside a bar in Kansas City, Kansas. Filiberto B. Espinoza Jr. was linked to the shooting and charged with first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. Espinoza admitted to the shooting but claimed self-defense, stating he shot Scherzer when he saw him pulling a firearm. In September 2017, Espinoza pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder and received a mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole for 25 years. His sentence was affirmed on appeal in April 2020.Espinoza filed a motion to withdraw his plea on January 5, 2021, which the district court did not rule on before he filed a second motion on November 21, 2023. The district court summarily dismissed both motions on December 20, 2023, noting the 2021 motion was timely but failed to establish manifest injustice, and the 2023 motion was untimely and lacked excusable neglect. Espinoza appealed the denial of both motions.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Espinoza's 2023 motion was untimely and did not demonstrate excusable neglect. The court noted that Espinoza was aware of the video footage and toxicology report during the trial, and his claims of ignorance did not constitute excusable neglect. Additionally, the court found no error in the district court's summary denial of the 2021 motion, as the record showed Espinoza was fully informed of his plea's consequences, and his allegations were conclusory without raising substantial issues of fact.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary denial of both motions to withdraw Espinoza's plea. View "State v. Espinoza" on Justia Law