Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court dissolving a writ of habeas corpus and finding that Appellant was properly classified as a sex offender under Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) policy, holding that summary dismissal was proper under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1505.In his habeas petition, Appellant alleged that KDOC improperly classified him as a sex offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq. The district court found that Appellant was properly classified as a sex offender under KDOC policy rather than KORA. A panel of the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the panel erred by analyzing the district court's ruling under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-212; but (2) summary dismissal was proper under section 60-1505. View "Denney v. Norwood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err in summarily denying Defendant's motion.A jury convicted Defendant of aggravated burglary, aggravated kidnapping, rape, and two counts of aggravated sodomy. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, arguing that his sentence was illegal because he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial and his right to allocution at sentencing. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither of Defendant's claims was properly before the court in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's postsentencing motion to withdraw his plea of no contest to first-degree felony murder, holding that Defendant did not meet his burden to establish that the district court abused its discretion.In his motion, Defendant argued that he did not fairly and knowingly enter the plea because his attorney provided ineffective representation by withholding discovery materials and not giving him sufficient time to review the plea agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant failed to show a manifest injustice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's plea withdrawal motion. View "State v. Shields" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw plea, which Defendant filed approximately seven years after he was convicted, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on a plea contest. Roughly seven years after he was convicted, Defendant filed his motion to withdraw plea. The district court ruled that the motion was untimely and that Defendant had failed to make an affirmative showing of excusable neglect to extend the deadline. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to establish excusable neglect for the delayed filing. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated robbery and his resulting sentences, holding that there was no reversible error.Defendant was found guilty by a jury of committing first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated robbery when he was fifteen years old. Defendant was sentenced life imprisonment for the murder conviction and a consecutive sixty-one months' term of imprisonment for the robbery conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by not giving an instruction on voluntary manslaughter-heat of passion; (2) Defendant failed to show that the prosecutor erred; and (3) Defendant's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment under the principles announced in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). View "State v. Gulley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.After he was convicted, Defendant filed a post trial motion alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by coercing him and his witnesses to change their testimony about the events leading to the murder and by disregarding the firearm expert's testimony regarding the functionality of the victim's gun. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that defense counsel neither disregarded the expert's testimony nor coerced Defendant or his witness to change their testimony. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Appellant was convicted of criminal solicitation to commit first-degree murder and first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for forty years. Appellant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, arguing that his hard forty sentence was illegal. The district court summarily denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as to Appellant's first claim of error, the sentence the court orally imposed at the sentencing hearing conformed to the appropriate statutory language, and Appellant was serving a legal sentence; and (2) as to Appellant's second and third claims, section 22-3504 was an improper vehicle to challenge the trial court's alleged procedural errors. View "State v. Juiliano" on Justia Law