Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kansas One-Call System (One-Call) managed and operated a centralized notification center for diggers working on underground utility infrastructure to use before they started excavating pursuant to the Kansas Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act (KUUDPA). The Kansas Legislature later amended the KUUPDA, which financially affected One-Call. One-Call sued to enjoin enforcement of the amendments on the grounds that the amendments violated (1) the original purpose provision of the Kansas Constitution, (2) the one-subject rule, (3) the separation of powers doctrine, and (4) the Equal Protection Clause and the Taking Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the challenged amendments were valid. View "Kansas One-Call Sys. v. State" on Justia Law

Pedro Torres was convicted of two counts of rape against an eleven-year-old girl. At trial, the State was allowed to present evidence related to Torres' conviction nearly two decades earlier for one count of indecent liberties with a child, evidence that was admitted to show Torres' plan by evidence that he had such a similar method a committing such crimes that it would be reasonable to conclude that he had committed this one based on the earlier one. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in admitting evidence of Torres' prior conviction because Torres' prior crime was not sufficiently similar to the later alleged rape to meet the test set forth in State v. Prine for admission of plan evidence; and (2) the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

Defendant M.L. Snellings pleaded no contest to eight drug-related charges and a ninth charge of criminal possession of a firearm. Snellings appealed his sentence, primarily arguing that two of his convictions were assigned the wrong severity level by the sentencing court under the identical offense sentencing doctrine. The Supreme Court vacated Snellings' sentence for possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, holding that this offense, which the district court classified as a severity level two drug felony, should be classified as a severity level four drug felony because it had identical elements to the offense of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, which was a severity level four drug felony. Remanded for resentencing on this count as a severity level four drug felony. View "State v. Snellings" on Justia Law

Ten years after Rolland Berreth was convicted and sentenced for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated criminal sodomy with a child under fourteen years of age, Berreth filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. Berreth's appointed counsel later filed several motions, all of which argued multiplicity, expanding Berreth's pro se motion. The district court ruled Berreth's aggravated kidnapping conviction was multiplicitous with the aggravated criminal sodomy convictions, reduced Berreth's aggravated kidnapping conviction to kidnapping, and therefore reduced Berreth's sentence. The State filed its notice of appeal and docketing statement, each specifically describing the appeal as one taken upon a question reserved under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3602(b)(3). The court of appeals reversed the district court and ordered reinstatement of Berreth's original sentence, holding that the district court erred in determining Berreth's convictions were multiplicitous and in resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed, remanded, and ordered reinstatement of Berreth's reduced sentence, holding that the court of appeals failed to properly treat the State's appeal as a question reserved. View "State v. Berreth" on Justia Law

Defendant Kenneth Adams was convicted by a jury of six counts relating to a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine. Adams appealed, claiming error at various stages of the trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Adams' convictions and affirmed in part and vacated in part Adams' sentences, specifically vacating Adams' sentence for possession of lithium metal with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, holding that the trial court erred in classifying this offense as a severity level two drug felony under the identical offense sentencing doctrine. Remanded for resentencing on that count as a severity level four drug felony. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

Joshua Coman pled guilty to misdemeanor criminal sodomy, as defined in Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3505(a)(1), based upon an incident with a dog. The Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) requires registration for those who commit felony criminal sodomy but omits the misdemeanor criminal sodomy for which Coman was convicted. Nevertheless, in addition to specifically named crimes, the list includes a catch-all provision under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4902(c)(14), which requires registration for those committing sexually motivated acts. The district court found that Coman was required to register under KORA because the act giving rise to his conviction for the unlisted version of criminal sodomy was sexually motivated. A divided court of appeals panel affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the order requiring Coman to register after construing the statute as a whole, holding that the legislature did not intend to include the acts constituting the sex crime defined in section 21-3505(a)(1) to be included within the catch-all provisions of section 22-4902(c)(14). View "State v. Coman" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers made a traffic stop of Defendant Dinah Sanchez-Loredo's vehicle, detained her at the scene for approximately 75 minutes while obtaining a search warrant, and recovered a large quantity of methamphetamine and some drug paraphernalia during the ensuing automobile search. The district court suppressed the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia, determining that exigent circumstances did not exist to support a warrantless search and seizure. The court of appeals reversed. At issue on appeal was whether the mobility of a vehicle provides exigent circumstances to search the vehicle regardless of the circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, for Fourth Amendment purposes, the mobility of a vehicle fulfills the requirement of exigent circumstances, so that a warrantless vehicle search is permitted based solely on probable cause. View "State v. Sanchez-Loredo" on Justia Law

Drugs were discovered during a warrantless search inside a vehicle that Bernard Preston was driving. Preston was subsequently convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of marijuana, and possession of cocaine without a tax stamp. Preston appealed, alleging numerous trial errors, including his claims that the vehicle search was illegal and that his prior drug conviction was improperly admitted. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of the admission of Preston's prior drug conviction, holding (1) the evidence of Preston's prior drug conviction was admitted in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455 and State v. Boggs because Preston disputed the allegations; and (2) the error was not harmless. View "State v. Preston" on Justia Law

The issue in this case was whether a trial court constitutionally erred in denying Father's last-minute request to provide his testimony by telephone from Georgia in a Kansas hearing to terminate Father's parental rights. The trial court held that without this testimony, Father failed to rebut the presumption of his parental unfitness established by the State's evidence. Father's parental rights therefore were terminated. A majority of the court of appeals panel reversed, holding that the trial court's ruling denied Father of procedural due process. The Supreme Court reversed the panel majority and affirmed the trial court on slightly different grounds, holding that Father failed to establish that his testimony by telephone was warranted, as Father was given appropriate notice of the time, place, and purpose of his parental rights termination hearing and an opportunity to appear there and be heard in a meaningful manner. View "In re K.E." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Ranell Turner was convicted of rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, criminal threat, and kidnapping. Turner had two prior conviction events for rape and one prior conviction event for aggravated criminal sodomy and for deviant sexual assault. At sentencing, the district court classified Turner as an aggravated habitual sex offender and sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole for the rape and aggravated criminal sodomy convictions under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4642. Turner appealed, arguing that two other statutes also governed his convictions and sentences that had more lenient sentences. The Supreme Court vacated Turner's sentence after finding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4704 and section 21-4642 overlapped and applying the rule that when the legislature allows two conflicting statutory provisions to coexist, the rule of lenity applies and the courts must follow the statutory provision more favorable to the accused. Remanded for imposition of sentence under section 21-4704. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law