Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that no exceptions extended the statutory speedy trial period in this case and that Defendant must be discharged from liability on the charges against him, holding that the State violated Defendant's statutory speedy trial rights.Defendant was charged with premeditated first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder. The State did not bring Defendant to trial until 153 days after his arraignment. After he was convicted, Defendant appealed, arguing that the State violated his statutory right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant's convictions, holding that, under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3402(a), Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated. View "State v. Queen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of a panel of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's sentence of seventy-eight months' imprisonment and addressing and determining the three additional issues raised by the parties on appeal, holding that the holding of the panel on two issues was merely advisory.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime electronic monitoring and erred in failing to grant him good time credit. For the first time on appeal, the State argued that the district court imposed an illegal sentence by departing more than fifty percent from a standard guideline sentence. The panel concluded that the district court illegally sentenced Defendant to only seventy-eight months and then determined the other issues raised on appeal. The Supreme Court held (1) the panel correctly determined that the seventy-eight-month sentence imposed was illegal; and (2) because any further consideration on the merits could result in holds merely advisory, the panel's holdings on the two remaining issues on review is vacated. View "State v. Dunn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's sentence and remanding the case to the district court for resentencing, holding that the court of appeals panel lacked the requisite authority to reform the plea agreement after finding the sentence imposed was illegal.Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the State in which Defendant agreed to plea no contest to aggravated robbery. The district court imposed a 180-month prison sentence as the State recommended. Defendant appealed his sentence, claiming for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by scoring his two pre-1993 Kansas burglaries convictions as person felonies for purposes of calculating his criminal history score. The panel agreed and sua sponte nullified the sentencing recommendation portion of the plea agreement. The court then held that the parties were free on remand to argue for a correct presumptive sentence. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals exceeded the scope of its authority when it reformed the parties' plea agreement as part of its remand order. View "State v. Tonge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's motion for leave to appeal out of time, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's motion under the exceptions set forth in State v. Ortiz, 640 P.2d 1255 (1982).This was the third of Appellant's appeals from the district court's decision denying his motion for leave to appeal out of time. Twice before, the Supreme Court considered Appellant's case and reversed the district court's decision and remanded the matter. In this appeal, Appellant argued that he was entitled to file an untimely appeal under the first and third Ortiz exceptions. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling denying Appellant's motion, holding that the district court correctly denied Appellant's motion to appeal out of time. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary dismissal of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. Upon sentencing, the sentencing judge granted the State's request for an upward departure without the use of a jury. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal, and the mandate issued on January 9, 1996. In his latest postconviction motion, Defendant argued that his upward departure sentence violated his due process rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and State v. Gould, 23 P.3d 801 (2001). The district court summarily dismissed Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that several factors precluded Defendant from pursuing relief through a motion for illegal sentence, including the fact that a motion for illegal sentence cannot serve as a vehicle for raising constitutional claims such as Defendant's Apprendi claim. View "State v. Hayes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Richard Quillen's petition to be placed in transitional release from his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (KSVPA), holding that the jury instructions given at Quillen's transitional release hearing were constitutionally adequate.After a jury trial, the court found that Quillen's mental abnormality or personality disorder remainder such that he was not safe to be placed in transitional release. On appeal, Quillen argued that the district court erred when it denied his request for an instruction that the jury must find Quillen had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) at a transitional release hearing, substantive due process requirements are satisfied when the jury instructions as a whole require the jury to necessarily and implicitly find the respondent continues to have serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior; and (2) the jury instructions in Quillen's case were constitutionally adequate under this standard. View "In re Care & Treatment of Quillen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court reversing Defendant's conviction of aggravated battery, rape, and aggravated kidnapping on the grounds that a conflict of interest existed between Defendant and his counsel that adversely affected the representation.In his Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion for relief from his convictions Defendant argued that his counsel had a personal and financial conflict of interest that adversely affected his performance in Defendant's case. The district court agreed and set aside Defendant's convictions without determining whether prejudice resulted from the conflict of interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's convictions must be reversed based on the financial conflict of interest of his trial counsel. View "Ellie v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for possession of marijuana, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia, holding that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that a syringe was found by police during a search that violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights but that the error was harmless.On appeal, the State conceded that the district court should have granted Defendant's motion to suppress on the syringe, admitting that the search incident to arrest exception for a warrantless search did not apply to this particular search. The court of appeals affirmed, accepting the State's concession that the syringe discovery was the product of an illegal search but without determining whether the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the court's admission of the syringe evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Thornton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon but vacated the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision as part of Defendant's sentence, holding that this portion of the sentence was erroneous.A jury convicted Defendant of both premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced him to a hard fifty life sentence for the murder and lifetime postrelease supervision for that charge. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial; (2) the prosecutor's comments during opening statement did not constitute error; (3) the verdict from presented no error of law; and (4) the sentencing court had no authority to order a term of postrelease supervision. View "State v. Fraire" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence for first-degree felony murder and several other offenses, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's departure motion and that Defendant abandoned his claim regarding proper notice under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq.After Defendant was originally sentenced, he filed two motions to correct an illegal sentence. The district court eventually resentenced Defendant but denied his motion for a departure sentence. Defendant appealed from his resentencing, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred in failing to notify him of his duty to register under KORA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for a departure sentence; and (2) Defendant failed to preserve his claim of defective notice under KORA. View "State v. Farmer" on Justia Law