Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On the evening of February 11, 2018, Deizmond C. Peters and three accomplices allegedly committed a series of crimes at a Wichita home, resulting in the death of Donte Devore. The group, armed with handguns, entered the home after assaulting Devore on the porch. During an altercation inside, Devore was shot and killed. Peters was later charged with first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, criminal possession of a weapon, and four counts of aggravated assault.The Sedgwick District Court held a jury trial where Peters was convicted on all charges. Peters filed a motion for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the court denied. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 618 months plus an additional 332 months. Peters appealed his convictions, raising several claims of trial and sentencing errors.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found merit in two of Peters' arguments. First, the court agreed that the evidence did not support his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon due to an error in the stipulation used to prove this charge. Second, the court noted that the sentencing journal entry of judgment improperly omitted Peters' jail credit award of 1,437 days. The court affirmed the remaining convictions, finding no error in the jury selection process, prosecutorial conduct, jury instructions, or the cumulative error doctrine. The court also upheld the method of determining Peters' criminal history under the Kansas Criminal Sentencing Guidelines, rejecting his constitutional challenge.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case with directions to vacate Peters' sentence for criminal possession of a weapon, resentence him without the reversed conviction, and issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the sentencing journal entry to include the jail credit award. View "State v. Peters" on Justia Law

Phillip Jason Garrett was accused of inappropriately touching a minor, L.A., who was under 14 years old. During a police interview, Garrett confessed to some of the allegations. The district court suppressed his statements, concluding they were involuntary due to deceptive police practices, including the use of a computerized voice stress analysis (CVSA) test, which officers falsely claimed was 100% accurate.The Saline District Court initially denied Garrett's motion to suppress, finding his statements voluntary. However, the court later reversed its decision, emphasizing the deceptive nature of the CVSA and the officers' tactics. The State appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court's suppression order, holding that the district court had placed undue weight on the deceptive practices and failed to consider the totality of the circumstances.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the deceptive practices by law enforcement, including the exaggerated claims about the CVSA's accuracy, did not constitute misconduct under the totality of the circumstances. The court noted that Garrett was a mature adult of average intelligence, fluent in English, and that the interrogation was not unduly prolonged or aggressive. The court concluded that the officers' tactics did not overbear Garrett's will, and thus, his confession was voluntary. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Garrett" on Justia Law

In May 2019, Mia Marie Collins attempted to flee from police in a stolen vehicle in downtown Wichita, resulting in a collision that killed two people and injured three others. Collins was charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of felony murder. She pled guilty to the felony murder charges, one count of fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, and three counts of aggravated battery, while other charges were dismissed. The plea agreement recommended concurrent sentences except for one aggravated battery count, which was to run consecutively based on the victim's severe injuries.The Sedgwick District Court, presided over by Judge Tyler J. Roush, held a hearing on Collins' motion to withdraw her plea. Collins argued that the State failed to disclose a news article about a civil settlement involving one of the victims, which she claimed would have influenced her decision to accept the plea deal. The district court found that the State did not have the information about the settlement at the time of the plea agreement and had no duty to know it. The court denied Collins' motion, stating that the State had not suppressed evidence and that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that there was no Brady violation because the State did not suppress any evidence, willfully or inadvertently. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Collins' motion to withdraw her plea, as the plea was made with full knowledge of the circumstances. Additionally, the court dismissed Collins' appeal regarding jail time credit as moot, since she had already been awarded the credit she sought. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

Adrian N. Zongker was a customer at a restaurant in Wichita, Kansas, owned by Oscar and Amelia Acosta. After finishing his meal, Zongker left the restaurant but returned shortly after, searching for a missing receipt and a bag of coins. Oscar helped Zongker search outside, but Zongker shot Oscar in the chest, killing him. Zongker was arrested nearby and confessed to the shooting, claiming the restaurant owners had stolen from him. At trial, Zongker was found competent to stand trial and rejected a plea deal for second-degree murder, opting to go to trial for first-degree murder.The Sedgwick District Court convicted Zongker of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon. Zongker moved for a downward durational departure at sentencing, citing his mental illness, but the court denied the motion and imposed a hard 50 life sentence. Zongker appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation, improper jury instructions, prosecutorial error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence in part. The court found sufficient evidence of premeditation, noting Zongker's conduct before and after the shooting and his statements indicating intent. The court upheld the additional jury instructions on premeditation, finding them appropriate given the temporal questions in the case. While the court identified prosecutorial errors in misstating facts, it deemed them harmless. The court declined to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as it was not preserved for review. The court also found no cumulative error warranting reversal. However, the court vacated the sentence for criminal possession of a weapon, finding it illegal, and remanded for resentencing on that count. View "State v. Zongker" on Justia Law

In March 2021, Bryan Curtis Daniels Jr. pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of domestic battery. The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) report, which indicated Daniels had a criminal history score of "C," including a 2003 Georgia burglary conviction classified as a person felony. Daniels did not dispute his criminal history at sentencing and admitted its accuracy. Consequently, the court sentenced him based on this history.Daniels appealed, arguing for the first time that his 2003 Georgia burglary conviction should not have been classified as a person felony, thus rendering his sentence illegal. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Daniels had the burden to prove his criminal history was incorrect. The panel interpreted K.S.A. 21-6811(e)(3)(B) and concluded that the district court had not committed an error of law in classifying the Georgia conviction as a person felony.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether Daniels' Georgia burglary conviction was misclassified. The court held that Daniels' admission to his criminal history, including the classification of the Georgia burglary as a person felony, relieved the State from producing additional evidence. The court also clarified that under K.S.A. 21-6814(c), an offender challenging their previously established criminal history must prove their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Daniels failed to provide evidence to refute his admission or to show that the district court's classification was incorrect. Consequently, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of both the Court of Appeals and the district court, upholding Daniels' sentence. View "State v. Daniels" on Justia Law

In 2019, Z.M. drove a vehicle from which a passenger shot at another car, killing the driver, J.M. Z.M. was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, first-degree felony murder, and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle. He was sentenced to a hard 50 life sentence.The Shawnee District Court denied Z.M.'s request for new counsel, finding no conflict of interest or breakdown in communication. Z.M. was found competent to stand trial. At trial, the State presented 34 witnesses, and Z.M. did not present any. The jury found Z.M. guilty on all counts. The court sentenced Z.M. to concurrent sentences for premeditated first-degree murder and criminal discharge of a firearm.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Z.M. alleged five errors: denial of new counsel, abandonment by trial counsel at sentencing, prosecutorial misstatements of law, inappropriate jury instructions, and cumulative errors denying a fair trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying new counsel, as the district court conducted an adequate inquiry and found no conflict or breakdown in communication. The court also found no Cronic violation at sentencing, as counsel did advocate for concurrent sentences.The court determined the prosecutor did not misstate the law on aiding and abetting, premeditation, or first-degree murder. The aiding and abetting instruction was legally appropriate, and the phrase "mental culpability" was comprehensible. However, the court acknowledged the jury instructions on first-degree murder and its lesser included offense were not legally appropriate, but this did not rise to the level of clear error. The jury's unanimous verdicts on both premeditated and felony murder indicated the errors did not affect the outcome.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Z.M.'s convictions and sentence, finding no cumulative error that denied him a fair trial. View "State v. Z.M." on Justia Law

Larry D. Huggins III was convicted of felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery following a series of events that led to the deaths of two young men. Huggins and his accomplices planned to rob O.H., a minor who sold marijuana, but the plan went awry, resulting in a shootout. Huggins was injured and later arrested. At trial, Huggins testified, denying any intent to rob and claiming he was merely trying to buy marijuana.The Shawnee District Court found Huggins guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to a hard 25 life sentence for felony murder, with additional consecutive sentences for the other charges, totaling a minimum of 25 years plus 103 months. Huggins was also ordered to pay $2,500 in attorney fees.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed several issues on appeal. Huggins argued that the jury instructions were erroneous because they did not match the charging document, which listed two victims for the attempted aggravated robbery. The court found the instructions legally appropriate as they included all statutory elements of the crime. Huggins also claimed insufficient evidence for his convictions, but the court held that the State did not need to prove he intended to rob both victims named in the charging document.Huggins challenged the voluntariness of his statements to police, arguing he was under the influence of medication and fatigued. The court found his statements voluntary, noting he was coherent and calm during the interview. Huggins also contested the admissibility of Facebook messages obtained via a search warrant, but the court ruled he failed to preserve this issue for appeal.The court found no prosecutorial error in the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments and rejected Huggins' claim of cumulative error. However, the court vacated the imposition of attorney fees, remanding the case for reconsideration of Huggins' ability to pay. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated and remanded the fee imposition. View "State v. Huggins" on Justia Law

Williams Nunez was charged with rape for engaging in sexual intercourse with a person unable to consent due to intoxication. He admitted to the act but claimed the victim was not too intoxicated to consent. A jury convicted him, and the district court sentenced him to 155 months in prison with lifetime postrelease supervision, based on the finding that he was 18 years or older at the time of the crime.Nunez appealed, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey were violated because his age was not determined by the jury. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence, concluding that Nunez had sufficiently admitted his age through various documents and statements, and any Apprendi error was harmless.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if Nunez's rights under Apprendi were violated. The court held that for a sentencing court to rely on a defendant's admission to increase a sentence, the admission must follow a knowing and voluntary waiver of the jury trial right. Since Nunez did not waive his jury trial rights regarding his age, the court found an Apprendi violation. The court also determined that the error was not harmless because the jury was not presented with evidence of Nunez's age.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, vacated the district court's sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing. The court directed that Nunez be sentenced to 60 months of postrelease supervision under K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1)(G)(ii), as this was the appropriate term given the lack of a jury finding on his age. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

Pettix McMillan was convicted of three counts of attempted first-degree murder after shooting his then-wife and two sons. The State sought upward durational departure sentences for the counts involving his sons, citing their vulnerability and McMillan's fiduciary responsibility. The jury found these aggravating factors, and McMillan filed a motion for a downward departure, which the sentencing judge denied. The judge imposed a total sentence of 1,068 months but did not clearly designate a primary count or specify the sentences for each count.McMillan appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals vacated his sentences, finding the total sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. On remand, the district court imposed a new sentence of 1,029 months, designating count two as the primary count but did not consider McMillan's renewed departure motion. McMillan appealed again, and the Court of Appeals held the district court erred by not considering the departure motion and by imposing a new sentence on counts two and three, which it deemed legal in the original sentencing.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the original sentences were illegal due to the failure to designate a primary count and specify sentences for each count. The Court found the original sentencing judge's intentions unclear and the journal entry inconsistent. It concluded that the McMillan II panel correctly vacated all sentences and that the McMillan III panel erred in limiting the resentencing to count one. The Court also held that the district court on remand must consider McMillan's departure motion, as the mandate rule did not preclude it. The case was remanded for a third sentencing hearing with directions to consider the departure motion and comply with the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act. View "State v. McMillan" on Justia Law

Robert William Doelz was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to a warrantless search, and the evidence obtained should have been suppressed. On remand, the State dropped the charge and did not pursue a retrial. Subsequently, Doelz sought compensation for his wrongful conviction under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-5004, which requires proving actual innocence among other criteria.The Shawnee District Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, interpreting K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) to require a claimant to prove that their innocence resulted in the reversal of their conviction, dismissal of charges, or a not guilty verdict upon retrial. The court found that Doelz's conviction was reversed due to a Fourth Amendment violation, not because he did not commit the crime. Since there was no evidence explaining why the charges were dismissed, a material fact remained unresolved. At a bench trial, Doelz testified to his innocence, but the court granted the State's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that Doelz failed to prove the charges were dismissed due to his innocence.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) requires a claimant to prove actual innocence and that this innocence led to the reversal, dismissal, or acquittal. The court found that the legislative intent behind the statute was to compensate only those who are factually innocent. Since Doelz did not provide evidence that the charges were dismissed because of his innocence, he did not meet the statutory requirements for compensation. View "In the Matter of the Wrongful Conviction of Doelz" on Justia Law