Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of aggravated criminal sodomy and the requirement that he register as a sex offender for life under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4906(c), holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that retroactive application of KORA violates the federal constitutional prohibition against ex post facto punishment, constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and infringed on his right to due process. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's due process and cruel and unusual punishment arguments were waived and abandoned; and (2) KORA registration requirements are not punitive in purpose or effect, and therefore, retroactive application of KORA provisions to Defendant did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. View "State v. Davidson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm, and criminal possession of a firearm and sentencing him to a hard twenty-five life sentence consecutive to 216 months' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no violation of Defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial; (2) there was no violation of Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for felony murder and criminal discharge of a firearm. View "State v. Shockley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence for aggravated domestic battery, holding that the district court's reason for departing from the presumptive sentence established by the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) was legally insufficient.Defendant pled guilty to aggravated domestic battery and moved for a downward departure sentence. The district court imposed twenty-four months' probation with an underlying sentence of thirty-one months. On appeal, the court of appeals vacated the sentence, holding that the district court's reason for departing was legally insufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentencing court relied on an improper nonstatutory mitigating factor. View "State v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., applied to Defendant's municipal court conviction for sexual battery, holding that KORA required Defendant to register.A Shawnee Municipal Court judge convicted Defendant of sexual battery. The district court held a trial de novo and found Defendant guilty on the sexual battery charge. The court further advised Defendant that he must register as a sex offender. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that because KORA does not explicitly declare that it applies to municipal ordinance violations, he should not be required to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2102 does not render KORA inapplicable to municipal court proceedings. View "City of Shawnee v. Adem" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling, and criminal discharge at an occupied vehicle, holding that Defendant failed to establish error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred by not giving his requested and legally correct language to a pattern jury instruction. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that, even without the language requested by Defendant, the jury instructions properly and fairly stated the applicable law and did not mislead the jury. View "State v. Wimbley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to modify sentence, in which he argued that his hard fifty sentence should be modified according to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), holding that the district court properly denied Defendant's motion for sentence modification but that the lifetime post release supervision shown in Defendant's journal entry of judgment must be vacated.Defendant filed a pro se motion requesting modification of his sentence on the premise that the court's sentence without benefit of a jury required resentencing pursuant to section 21-6628(c). The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence in part, holding (1) Defendant's sentence was not illegal and did not require resentencing; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to modify sentence; and (3) because Defendant's off-grid sentence was followed by parole and not postrelease supervision, the lifetime postrelease supervision shown in Defendant's journal entry of judgment must be vacated. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion to appoint counsel and, by implication, his accompanying pro se petition for DNA testing under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-2512 on the basis that his convictions had not yet become final, holding that section 21-2512 does not require that Defendant's conviction reach a state of finality on direct appeal before he may initiate proceedings under the statute.Defendant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated kidnapping and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's sentence and remanded the case. Following remand, Defendant followed a pro se petition for postconviction DNA testing, following by a motion for appointment of counsel. The district court denied the motion for appointment of counsel and did not explicitly address the petition for DNA testing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 21-2512 grants continuing jurisdiction to the court that entered the judgment to consider a petition for DNA testing at any time following conviction and to appoint counsel at any time, regardless of other ongoing appellate proceedings. View "State v. Thurber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of rape, two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, and one count of aggravated intimidation of a victim, holding that the district court did not err when it permitted the father of the victim (Father) to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.Father had previously been convicted of sexual abuse of the victim. During trial, the district court allowed Father to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and excused him from the trial. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's convictions, holding that the district court erred when it permitted Father to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege and that the error was not harmless. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not err in excluding Father's testimony as evidence. View "State v. Contreras" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, arson, and aggravated burglary, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of particular evidence at trial and no error in the denial of Defendant's request for a mental health evaluation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not improper hearsay evidence; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior misconduct on Defendant's part for the purposes of showing motive, intent, and identity; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's presentence request for a mental health evaluation. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed two of Defendant's convictions and reversed the court of appeals' decision to reverse two more of Defendant's convictions, holding that clearly erroneous jury instructions required reversal in part.Defendant was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child. Counts two and four, describing the possession of illicit materials, were charged in the alternative to counts one and three, describing "promoting any performance." The district court sentenced Defendant as an aggravated habitual sex offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole but did not impose sentence on the two counts charged in the alternative. The court of appeals reversed two of Defendant's convictions on the basis that they were charged in the alternative and determined that Defendant should have been sentenced as a persistent sex offender. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in permitting evidence of Defendant's prior convictions; and (2) asserted errors in the language of the jury instructions pertaining to Defendant's convictions in counts one and three were not harmless. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law