Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of off-grid aggravated indecent liberties with a child pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State agreed to dismiss a third count and stand silent at sentencing. Defendant asked that the Jessica's Law life sentences with twenty-five-year mandatory minimums run concurrently, but the district court judge imposed two consecutive life sentences with no possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to consider whether the district court abused its discretion in running these off-grid life sentences consecutively; and (2) under the facts of this case, it was not an abuse of discretion to impose the life sentences consecutively. View "State v. Frecks" on Justia Law

Phillip Baptist pleaded no contest to the off-grid crime of rape of a child under the age of fourteen. The district court imposed a hard twenty-five life sentence under Jessica's Law, meaning Baptist would only be eligible for parole after serving twenty-five years in prison, and also imposed lifetime postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the sentence, holding (1) the statutory provision providing for a hard twenty-five life sentence is the only provision that applies when a defendant is sentenced under Jessica's law, and therefore, the district court did not err in sentencing Baptist to a hard twenty-five life sentence; (2) a defendant sentenced under Jessica's Law is subject to lifetime parole rather than lifetime postrelease supervision, and therefore, the district court erred in sentencing Baptist to lifetime postrelease supervision; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baptist's motion to depart from the sentence provided for in Jessica's Law because reasonable people could have agreed that the aggravating circumstances of the crime outweighed the mitigating factor. Remanded. View "State v. Baptist" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape of a child less than fourteen years old and one count of aggravated criminal sodomy of a child less than fourteen years old. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 592 months based on his criminal history score. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for departure from the mandatory sentencing provisions provided in Jessica's Law. Because the journal entry erroneously included lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime electronic monitoring, the case was remanded with directions to correct that portion of the sentence. View "State v. Mason" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to an amended charge of kidnapping with the intent to facilitate flight and was sentenced to a term of five years in prison. Defendant signed a petition to enter a plea of guilty in which he verified that he entered the plea knowingly and understandingly and without threats or promises. Defendant later moved to withdraw his guilty plea and also filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court denied both motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly denied Defendant's motions, as (1) the State did not violate the plea agreement or fail to disclose exculpatory documents prior to the entry of Defendant's plea, and Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel prior to the entry of Defendant's plea; and (2) Defendant's challenge to the legality of his sentence was fatally flawed. View "State v. Szczygiel" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and an unlawful weapons violation. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences and a concurrent three- to ten-year sentence on the weapons conviction. Defendant appealed the district court's summary denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. Defendant's motion alleged the district court imposed cumulative punishments for the felony murder and aggravated kidnapping convictions because both arose from the same act of violence. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary denial of his motion because Defendant unsuccessfully argued the identical issue previously, and therefore, Defendant's claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction for criminal possession of a firearm in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4204(a)(4)(A), which imposes a ten-year prohibition on the possession of a firearm by persons convicted of certain felonies. Defendant had a 1994 conviction for aggravated battery, one of the felonies listed in section 21-4204(a)(4)(A), for which he served a prison sentence. Defendant was released from prison on that sentence in 2004. The district court found the ten-year firearm prohibition period began upon Defendant's release from prison in 2004. Defendant argued that, as applied to him, the statutory language prohibited firearm possession for ten years from his date of conviction, which period had expired before his firearm possession in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the ten-year ban on the possession of firearms began to run against Defendant on the date he was released from prison on the aggravated battery sentence. View "State v. LaGrange" on Justia Law

After pleading no contest to three counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing (1) the State breached the plea agreement by arguing against the recommended sentence in the agreement, and (2) the district court erred in determining the minimum prison term Defendant must serve before becoming eligible for parole and in including lifetime electronic monitoring in the journal entry of judgment. The Supreme Court (1) remanded the case to the district court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order deleting the reference to electronic monitoring in the journal entry, holding that the district court had no authority to impose lifetime electronic monitoring; and (2) affirmed the remainder of Defendant's sentence. View "State v. Antrim" on Justia Law

In this State appeal, the State contended the district court erred in expunging Allen Jaben's 1977 convictions for attempted rape, rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated battery. The State urged the Supreme Court to find that the district court should have applied the expungement statute in effect at the time Jaben filed his expungement petition, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4619(c), which prohibited expungement of those convictions. Instead, the district court applied the statute in effect at the time Jaben committed his crimes of conviction, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4617, which permitted expungement of Jaben's convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly applied the expungement statute in effect at the time the crimes underlying the convictions sought to be expunged were committed, as because the legislature did not clearly indicate an intent to retrospectively apply the statute in effect at the time Jaben filed his petition, section 21-4619 applies only prospectively. View "State v. Jaben" on Justia Law

Alesia Warrior was convicted by a jury of the premeditated first-degree murder of her husband and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Warrior received a controlling hard 50 life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Warrior's convictions and sentence, holding (1) statements Warrior made to law enforcement officers while she was hospitalized were not custodial but were rather investigatory; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Warrior's motion for a new trial on the basis that the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence pertaining to a juvenile burglary adjudication of a key prosecution witness, as, under the reasonable probability test, the jury's verdict was not compromised; (3) the admission of hearsay testimony regarding statements made by the victim, Warrior's husband, indicating his belief that his marriage was in trouble, assuming it was error, was harmless; (4) the trial court did not clearly err in giving a deadlocked jury instruction prior to deliberations; (5) Kansas' hard 50 sentencing scheme was constitutional; and (6) in light of the record as a whole, there was not a reasonable probability that the combined errors affected the outcome of the trial. View "State v. Warrior" on Justia Law

Michael Mitchell was convicted of aggravated robbery based entirely on the victim's eyewitness identification. The victim picked Mitchell out of a photo lineup a few days after the robbery and indicated with 100 percent certainty that Mitchell was the assailant. At trial, the victim testified he had known Mitchell for several months before the attack but did not know his name. On appeal, Mitchell argued that the district court should have deleted the degree of certainty factor from those listed in the cautionary eyewitness identification instruction. Mitchell contended that this factor improperly focused the jury on expressions of certainty when evaluating the accuracy of eyewitness identification. The Supreme Court affirmed Mitchell's conviction, holding (1) the witness certainty factor in the instruction should no longer be used because it prompts the jury to conclude that eyewitness identification evidence is more reliable when the witness expresses greater certainty; but (2) the instruction could not have misled the jury since the eyewitness knew his attacker and was subjected to a thorough cross-examination. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law