Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to aggravated escape from custody, holding that the court of appeals erred in vacating the reclassification of Defendant's criminal history.After a hearing, the sentencing court sentenced Defendant to a prison term of forty months, with twenty-four months' postrelease supervision. Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the sentencing court illegally reclassified his 2005 conviction and sentence from nonperson to person. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals vacated the reclassification of Defendant's criminal history. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6801 et seq., all prior convictions are to be classified as person or nonperson as of the time the new crime is committed. View "State v. Terrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction discovery, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court's ruling constituted an abuse of discretion.Defendant was convicted and sentenced for first-degree felony murder and other crimes. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction discovery under State v. Mundo-Parra, 462 P.3d 1211 (Kan. 2020), arguing that postconviction discovery was necessary to protect substantial rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, assuming without deciding that Mundo-Parra defines a defendant's legal right to postconviction discovery, the district court did not base its decision on an erroneous legal conclusion. View "State v. Butler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the panel of the court of appeals that applied the 2018 amendments to Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1567, the driving under the influence (DUI) statute, to Defendant, who committed a DUI before, but was sentenced after, the amendments came into effect, holding that the court of appeals erred.The Supreme Court clarified the general rule established in State v. Reese, 333 P.3d 149 (Kan. 2014), that courts should apply the DUI sentencing provisions in effect at the time of sentencing but holding that a sentencing court should apply the version of section 8-1567 in effect at the time of sentencing unless the Legislature amended the statutory provisions after the offense was committed and that amendment increases the defendant's penalty. The Court remanded the matter to the district court for resentencing under the sentencing provisions in effect when Defendant committed the DUI, holding that applying the 2018 amendments to Defendant at sentencing would increase his punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "State v. Patton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of first-degree felony murder and one count each of intentional second-degree murder and attempted intentional second-degree murder, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims on appeal.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter as an additional underlying felony of felony murder and that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no instructional error; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the district court and court of appeals that the district court had the authority to revoke Defendant's probation, holding that Defendant's probation revocation must be set aside because the district court lacked authority to require him to serve his prison sentence.At issue on appeal was whether the thirty-day extension allowed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3716(e) for a court to initiate certain actions to revoke a criminal defendant's probation applies when, as happened in this case, an intensive supervision officer issues an arrest and detain notice within thirty days of probation expiring. The court of appeals concluded that the district court had the authority to impose sanctions for Defendant's probation violation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court acted without authority in revoking Defendant's probation and sending him to prison. View "State v. Darkis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's drug-related convictions stemming from law enforcement's seizure of forty-four pounds of marijuana during a traffic stop of a vehicle Defendant did not own or occupy, holding that there was no error in the jury instructions.Defendant was convicted for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. On appeal, Defendant challenged, among other things, the instruction stating a permissive inference the jury "may accept or reject" about Defendant's intent to distribute marijuana, arguing that it did not fairly and accurately reflect applicable law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not commit clear error in its jury instructions; and (2) any statutory defect was harmless in Defendant's case beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Holder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant for possession of methamphetamine and possession of an opiate, holding that there was no error.Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of illegal drug possession. During sentencing, Defendant did not object to a criminal history score of B based on two prior felonies for fleeing and eluding. Defendant affirmatively admitted to his criminal history, but on appeal, he argued that the State failed to offer sufficient proof to support the classification of his prior convictions as felonies. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's admission to his criminal history relieved the state from having to present any additional evidence to support the criminal history score. View "State v. Corby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's death sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for capital murder, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on the penalty phase issues before the Court on remand from the United States Supreme Court in Kansas v. Carr, 477 U.S. 108 (2016).In its previous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction but vacated his death sentence, concluding that the trial court violated Defendant's Eighth Amendment right to an individualized sentencing determination by refusing to sever the trial's penalty phase from that of his codefendant brother. On remand, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's death sentence, holding (1) the record supported the findings that one or more aggravating circumstances existed and that any mitigating circumstances were insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances; and (2) Defendant received a fair trial. View "State v. Carr" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence of death imposed in connection with his conviction for capital murder, holding that the sentence was not "imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor." See Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6619(c)(1).Defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the death sentencing, holding that the failure to sever the penalty phase violated Defendant's right to an individualized sentencing determination under the Eighth Amendment. However, in Kansas v. Carr, 477 U.S. 108 (2016), the United States Supreme Court held that the trial court's failure to Defendant's penalty phase did not implicate either the Eighth Amendment or the Due Process Clause. On remand, the Supreme Court addressed penalty phase issues that remained unresolved. The Court then affirmed Defendant's sentence, holding that Defendant received a fair trial and that any mitigating circumstances were insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances. View "State v. Carr" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion for a sentence modification under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c) and denied Defendant's newly raised claim of an illegal sentence, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a hard forty sentence. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for sentence modification pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), which the district court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for sentence modification; and (2) Defendant's argument raised for the first time on appeal that his sentence was illegal because the sentencing court did not comply with a statutory direction to designate the aggravating circumstances in writing was without merit. View "State v. Bedford" on Justia Law