Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for premeditated first-degree murder and his sentence of life without the possibility of parole for fifty years, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a venue change; (2) the autopsy photographs admitted at trial were relevant, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that they were not unduly prejudicial; and (3) the district court did not err when it declined Defendant's request for an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for aggravated battery, aggravated burglary, and criminal threat, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the court of appeals panel abused its discretion in entertaining Defendant's constitutional speedy trial claims required factual development out of the reach of an appellate court; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's aggravated burglary conviction; and (3) the district court erred by admitting out-of-court statements of an interpreter over defense hearsay objections, but the erroneous ruling on the hearsay objection was harmless. View "State v. Gutierrez-Fuentes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence imposed following Defendant's plea of guilty to two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of felony theft, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant.Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of premeditated intentional murder and one count of theft. The trial court sentenced him to two consecutive hard fifty life terms for the murders. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his request for a departure sentence, essentially challenging the decision's reasonableness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's departure motion. View "State v. Fowler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's probation and order him to serve his original prison sentence, holding that the district court's revocation of Defendant's probation adhered to the statutory framework in Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3716(c)(9)(B).Defendant pleaded guilty to failure to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. After Defendant violated his probation, the district court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the original prison sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court lacked the authority to revoke his probation without imposing the required immediate sanctions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by bypassing immediate sanctions and imposing Defendant's original prison sentence. View "State v. Tafolla" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the district court and the court of appeals concluding that Kansas did not have "proximate result" jurisdiction under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5106, holding that the lower courts erred in interpreting and applying section 21-5106.At issue was whether Kansas had territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Defendant for insurance fraud and making a false information where Defendant committed no acts related to those charges while physically in the state. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that Defendant's actions caused a consequence or effect in Kansas close enough in time or cause to the alleged criminal acts to qualify as a proximate result allowing Kansas to exercise jurisdiction. View "State v. Rozell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of felony possession of methamphetamine, misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, and misdemeanor theft, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant was detained at Walmart for trying to leave the store without paying for merchandise. Defendant was arrested and taken to jail, where a booking deputy conduct an inventory search of Defendant's possessions. Upon discovering illicit drugs the deputy did a strip search of Defendant's person, discovering more illicit drugs. Defendant moved to suppress the drugs and paraphernalia based on an illegal misdemeanor arrest. The motion was denied, and Defendant was convicted. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence should have been suppressed because the officer illegally arrested her rather than issuing her a notice to appear. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officer had probable cause to believe Defendant committed misdemeanor theft and would not be apprehended. View "State v. Goodro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motions filed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 and Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, holding that Defendant's section 60-1507 motion was untimely and successive and that Defendant's sentence was not illegal.In 2003, Defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to a hard fifty life sentence. Since his conviction, Defendant filed multiple collateral attacks on his sentence and conviction, all of which were unsuccessful. In the motions at issue on appeal, Defendant alleged that his sentence was unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and that this Court's failure to correct his sentence violated Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c). The district court denied both motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motions. View "Drennan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to set aside a void judgment under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-260(b)(4) and his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, holding that Defendant's argument on appeal was not legally sound.Defendant, an inmate serving a life sentence for first-degree felony murder, filed a motion to set aside a void judgment and a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence was void and illegal because the State initially charged him with an offense outside of the statute of limitations, depriving the district court of jurisdiction over all later proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional bar, and therefore, the complaint was never void, and Defendant's sentence was not illegal. View "State v. Gleason" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court entering judgment upon the jury's verdict and convicting Defendant of first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and criminal possession of a weapon, holding that Defendant received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel.After he was convicted, Defendant filed a post trial motion alleging several instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court denied the motion after holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record showed that trial counsel (1) did not coerce Defendant or his witnesses to change their testimony about the events leading up to the murder; and (2) did not disregard the firearm expert's testimony regarding the functionality of the victim's gun. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the district court in connection with his plea of guilty to two counts of felony first-degree murder, with kidnapping as the underlying felony, holding that there was no reversible error in the sentencing proceedings.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant and the State agreed to request presumptive hard twenty-five sentences. After a sentencing hearing, the court imposed consecutive hard twenty-five sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial competent evidence supported the factual determination that Defendant committed the crimes in the hope of receiving financial compensation; and (2) there was no reversible error in the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to continue. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law