Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals panel reversing Defendant's convictions for forgery, felony theft, and misdemeanor theft, holding that the panel erred when it decided Defendant's claims because she did not preserve them for appeal.Before the court of appeals, Defendant argued for the first time on appeal that the district court violated both her constitutional right to be present at a critical stage in the proceedings and her statutory right to a speedy trial when it granted the State's motion for a continuance. The court of appeals agreed and reversed Defendant's convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the panel erred when it decided Defendant's claims because she did not preserve them for appeal. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that substantial competent evidence did not support the district court's restitution amount in this case but reversed the court's mandate directing a second evidentiary hearing.Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property or services. The district court ordered Defendant to pay $17,279 in restitution. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that the order was not supported by substantial competent evidence and vacated the order. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision to vacate the restitution order and remand the case to the district court but reversed its mandate directing a second evidentiary hearing, holding that, on remand, the district court is to impose a new restitution order that is supported by substantial competent evidence from the existing record. View "State v. Dailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment denying as untimely Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, holding that the district court correctly determined that Defendant did not demonstrate excusable neglect.Defendant pled no contest to capital murder and was convicted of first-degree and second-degree murder. Approximately four and a half years after being sentenced, Defendant moved to withdraw his no contest plea. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant had failed to show the required excusable neglect to extend the one-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show excusable neglect, as required by Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(e)(2). View "State v. Ellington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the district court convicting Defendant of battery of a law enforcement officer and ordering Defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $2,649 to reimburse the workers compensation insurance carrier that paid the officer's medical bills arising out of the battery, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) criminal restitution does not violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) the current structure of criminal restitution violates section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights but is remedied by severance. With today's holding, restitution may still be imposed by a judge either as part of the sentence, as contemplated by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6604(b), or as a condition of probation, as contemplated by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6607(c)(2). View "State v. Robison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and restitution order, holding that any error did not require reversal of the convictions.Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and aggravated burglary. The district judge sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence plus forty-three months and ordered him to pay $7,470 in restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district judge did not abuse its discretion in admitting two sets of statements; (2) the judge did not commit reversible error by twice denying Defendant's requests for a mistrial; (3) the aggravated burglary instruction was not clearly erroneous; (4) the prosecutor committed harmless error during closing arguments; (5) the cumulative effect of any errors did not deny Defendant a fair trial; and (6) Defendant's original restitution judgment was constitutionally firm. View "State v. Owens" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the restitution ordered against Petitioner by the district court, holding that the restitution did not violate Petitioner's right to a jury under both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit burglary for providing the car which her boyfriend used to burglarize two houses. The boyfriend paid Defendant $200 when he returned the car. The district court ordered that Defendant and her codefendants pay the full amount of the State's requested restitution, $33,249, jointly and severally. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) criminal restitution does not violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) the current structure of criminal restitution violates section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights but is remedied by severance. View "State v. Arnett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and six additional offenses arising from a 1994 nightclub shooting. The jury recommended a hard forty sentence for one of the first-degree murders and a hard fifteen life sentence for the other murder. The trial court imposed the recommended sentences to run consecutively. In 1994, Defendant filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the hard forty sentence must be vacated because the State did not provide the proper notice of its intent to seek that penalty. The district court denied the motion after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying relief. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions of battery against a law enforcement officer and intentional criminal threat, holding that the cumulative effect of five errors in Defendant's trial affected the trial's outcome.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana, battery against a law enforcement officer, and intentional criminal threat. The court of appeals reversed the marijuana conviction and ordered a new trial on the marijuana charge and identified four other trial errors related to Defendant's remaining convictions but determined that, individually and collectively, they were harmless. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reversed Defendant's two remaining convictions, holding that the cumulative effect of five errors made during trial affected the trial's outcome. The Court remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of two counts of rape of a child under fourteen years of age, holding that Defendant's counsel was ineffective.A jury convicted Defendant of two counts of rape of a child under fourteen years of age for her actions as a middle school counselor in allegedly engaging in sex acts with a student. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' holding that Defendant's intent was irrelevant in this case and remanded the case to the district court for a Van Cleave hearing. The district court concluded that trial counsel had not been ineffective. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the absence of an instruction permitting the jury to apply Defendant's defense was prejudicial; and (2) there is no mental culpability requirement for rape of a child under fourteen. View "State v. Dinkel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, holding that the district court correctly construed Defendant's motion as a motion to correct illegal sentence under section 22-3504.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for forty years. In her motion to correct illegal sentence, Defendant argued that her hard forty sentence was illegal because it did not conform to certain statutory requirements. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial and asserting that the district court should have construed her motion as a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) summarily denying Defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence; and (2) construing Defendant's motion as a motion to correct illegal sentence. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law