Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with five drug- and firearm-related felonies after a law enforcement officer stopped him for driving a vehicle with a defective headlight and arrested him when he could not produce proof of insurance. The district court concluded that the evidence seized from Defendant’s automobile in the warrantless search incident to his arrest should be suppressed. The court of appeals reversed the suppression ruling. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the search of Defendant’s vehicle was illegal because the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle for evidence incident to his arrest was conducted at a time when searches incident to arrest were governed in the state by statute, and the statute in effect at the time the search at issue was conducted did not authorize searches for the purpose of discovering evidence. View "State v. Julian" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape of a child and one count of sexual exploitation of a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of twenty-five years for his rape of a child conviction and imposed lifetime postrelease supervision for both convictions. Defendant appealed the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of his sexual exploitation sentence. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the sexual exploitation sentence, holding that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment; and (2) vacated sua sponte the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of Defendant’s rape sentence, holding that the district court erred in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision for Defendant’s rape conviction as part of sentencing him to an off-grid indeterminate life sentence.View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled no contest to two counts of felony murder and one count of aggravated arson. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to the three charges. The district judge denied the motion, concluding that Defendant failed to show that manifest injustice would result if he was unable to withdraw his pleas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to inquire explicitly at Defendant’s plea hearing about promises made to Defendant; (2) Defendant’s defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (3) the record did not support Defendant’s assertion that he did not understand the meaning and consequences of a no contest plea.View "State v. Morris" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and sexual exploitation of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions but vacated Appellant’s sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting into evidence Appellant’s prior conviction for indecent liberties with a child and two home videotapes; (2) the district court issued an erroneous limiting instruction, but the instruction was not clearly erroneous; (3) Appellant waived his allegation of error on Confrontation Clause grounds by failing to timely and specifically object on that basis; (4) the prosecutor improperly speculated on facts not in evidence during his rebuttal closing argument, but the error did not require reversal; and (5) the sentencing court improperly imposed a mandatory minimum sentence instead of departing to a guidelines sentence after granting Appellant’s motion to depart. Remanded.View "State v. Dean" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, the alternative charge of second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. Defendant raised several issues on appeal, including an allegation that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the withdrawal of his pro se in pro se motion for new counsel without making a sufficient inquiry into the circumstances prompting the motion. The Supreme Court remanded on this issue, holding that the district court erred in not inquiring before allowing the apparently nonconsensual withdrawal of Defendant’s pro se motion for new counsel. The Court also remanded for a nunc pro tunc order correcting the severity level of Defendant’s second-degree murder conviction. The Court rejected Defendant’s remaining claims of error. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery for crimes committed when Defendant was thirteen years old. Defendant was tried as an adult. The district court sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty life sentence for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in waiving juvenile jurisdiction and in authorizing the State to prosecute Defendant as an adult; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury that a killing in the flight from an attempt to commit an inherently dangerous felony constitutes felony murder; (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s aggravated attempted robbery conviction; (4) the prosecutor made improper statements during closing argument, but there was no reasonable possibility the prosecutor’s improper commentary affected the trial’s outcome; and (5) Defendant’s argument that her mandatory life-with-parole sentence was unconstitutional was without merit. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with abuse of a child and felony murder with the underlying felony of child abuse arising from the death of an eleven-month-old child who was in Defendant’s care. The first jury trial resulted in a conviction on the child abuse charge. Because the first jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the felony-murder charge, a second trial was held, after which Defendant was convicted of felony murder. Defendant appealed, raising several issues relating to both trials. The Supreme Court affirmed the felony-murder conviction but reversed the abuse of a child conviction, holding that because Defendant did not present a unified defense to the child abuse charge, the district court’s failure to give a unanimity instruction despite evidence of multiple acts was clearly erroneous. Remanded. View "State v. De La Torre" on Justia Law

In 1995, Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder and aggravated robbery for crimes Appellant committed when he was fourteen years old. Approximately twelve years later, Appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Appellant also argued that his aggravated robbery sentence was illegal because his juvenile adjudications were used both to certify him for adult prosecution and to compute his criminal history score. The district court denied Appellant’s motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate the manifest injustice required by Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(d) to withdraw his guilty pleas; and (2) Appellant’s aggravated robbery sentence, which was within the presumptive sentence for that crime based on Appellant’s criminal history score, was not illegal.View "State v. Kelly" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under the age of fourteen and was sentenced to concurrent life sentences without the possibility of parole for forty years. Defendant appealed, raising five issues relating to alleged trial errors and one issue relating to sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant failed to preserve several of his arguments by not making a timely objection to evidence or not creating a sufficient record for appeal; and (2) Defendant’s remaining arguments lacked merit. View "State v. Reed" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a habeas corpus action alleging, inter alia, that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to challenge an incorrect written jury instruction that diluted the State’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s conviction and remanded his case for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the incorrect instruction was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to a new trial.View "Miller v. State" on Justia Law