Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jason W. Phipps pled no contest to two felonies and two misdemeanors in 2022. His presentence investigation report calculated a criminal history score of B, which he contested, arguing that his 2010 conviction for criminal threat should not be counted due to a ruling in State v. Boettger that struck down reckless criminal threat as unconstitutional. The district court used the modified categorical approach and concluded that Phipps' conviction was for the intentional version of criminal threat, thus maintaining the B score for sentencing.The Kansas Court of Appeals reviewed the case while the United States Supreme Court issued Counterman v. Colorado, which held that a reckless mens rea is sufficient for a criminal threat conviction. The Court of Appeals determined that Counterman overruled Boettger, making it irrelevant whether Phipps' conviction was for reckless or intentional criminal threat, and affirmed his sentence.The Kansas Supreme Court granted Phipps' petition for review. During the review, Phipps completed his sentence, leading the court to question whether the case was moot. After further briefing, the court concluded that Phipps' release rendered the issues moot and overruled the precedent set in State v. Roat, which allowed for review of moot issues under certain exceptions. The court held that once an issue is determined to be moot, jurisdiction is extinguished, and no prudential exceptions apply. Consequently, Phipps' appeal was dismissed as moot, and the court did not address the merits of the Counterman decision. View "State v. Phipps " on Justia Law

Dary Jene Green shot and killed Angela Gatlin as she was getting out of his car in Kansas City, Kansas. Green waived his right to counsel before the preliminary hearing and represented himself through pretrial proceedings and trial. After a jury convicted him of premeditated first-degree murder, the district court briefly appointed counsel, but Green opted to resume self-representation before sentencing. The district court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 50 years.The Wyandotte District Court found Green guilty of premeditated first-degree murder. Green appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation, the statute's vagueness, the district court's error in requiring evidence of a witness's unavailability, and the lack of a second waiver colloquy for self-representation at sentencing. The district court had denied Green's motions to dismiss charges due to an allegedly illegal arrest and ruled that his arrest was lawful. The court also addressed Green's Fifth Amendment claim, finding no interrogation occurred at the time of his arrest.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support Green's conviction for premeditated first-degree murder, noting the use of a deadly weapon, lack of provocation, and Green's conduct before and after the killing. The court also found that the premeditated first-degree murder statute was not unconstitutionally vague, as the components of premeditation (time and consideration) provided explicit standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court did not err in excluding the preliminary hearing testimony of an allegedly unavailable witness, as Green failed to present evidence of the witness's unavailability. Finally, the court held that Green knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel at sentencing, as the brief appointment of counsel did not substantially change the circumstances requiring a new waiver. View "State v. Green " on Justia Law

Terry Eugene Ross Jr. was charged with multiple crimes, including domestic violence against his wife A.R., sexual abuse of his stepdaughters H.L. and D.L., and violations of protection orders. The incidents occurred between January and August 2019, with Ross allegedly exerting control and committing acts of violence and sexual abuse within the household. The State of Kansas consolidated five separate cases against Ross for trial, arguing that the crimes were part of a common scheme or plan to dominate and control the women in his household.The Sedgwick District Court granted the State's motion to consolidate the cases, finding that the crimes were of the same or similar character and part of a common scheme or plan. The court also ruled that the probative value of consolidating the cases outweighed any potential prejudice to Ross. Ross was convicted on most charges, but acquitted on a few, including aggravated assault and unlawful discharge of a firearm. He was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences plus additional time for other charges.The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed Ross' convictions, finding errors in the district court's decision to consolidate the cases and identifying prosecutorial error. The panel also concluded that the jury's convictions on two alternatively charged counts warranted reversal. The State petitioned for review, and Ross conditionally cross-petitioned.The Kansas Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in consolidating the cases, as the crimes were part of a common scheme or plan. The court also found no prosecutorial error in the opening statements and concluded that Ross failed to preserve a challenge to the inadvertent publication of an unredacted 911 call. The cumulative error doctrine did not apply as no errors were found. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, except for the two convictions on counts two and three of 19-CR-2036, which were left undisturbed and remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Ross " on Justia Law

Mika Lee Thille was convicted of reckless second-degree murder after an incident at Justin Willingham's house. Thille, along with three companions, went to the house to confront his brother Max, who was using heroin there and had allegedly stolen handbags from one of the companions, Valerie Vogel. Upon arrival, a confrontation ensued between Thille and Willingham, during which Willingham was shot and killed. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts of the events, with some claiming Thille fired the shots and others suggesting Willingham had a gun and fired first.The Saline District Court charged Thille with first-degree premeditated and felony murder, among other charges. The jury convicted him of reckless second-degree murder but acquitted him of the other charges. Thille appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not providing jury instructions for voluntary manslaughter under sudden quarrel and imperfect self-defense theories, as well as for involuntary manslaughter.The Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision, finding that the voluntary manslaughter instructions were not factually appropriate. The court reasoned that there was no evidence of sufficient provocation or an honest belief that lethal force was necessary. The panel also held that while an involuntary manslaughter instruction was factually appropriate, the district court's failure to give it was harmless.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court agreed that the voluntary manslaughter instructions were not factually appropriate due to a lack of sufficient provocation and no evidence of an honest belief in the necessity of lethal force. The court also found that the failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter was not clear error, as the evidence strongly supported the jury's conclusion of reckless second-degree murder. View "State v. Thille " on Justia Law

Quortez Brown and his cousin broke into Otis Bolden's apartment, shot and killed Bolden, and threatened Ashley Green with a gun. A jury convicted Brown of first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. The district court judge sentenced Brown to 20-years-to-life imprisonment for felony murder, 34 months for aggravated burglary, and 12 months for aggravated assault. The judge also pronounced that Brown was subject to "postrelease supervision duration of life," although the journal entry of judgment ordered parole rather than postrelease supervision.Brown appealed his convictions and sentences, and the Kansas Supreme Court rejected most of his arguments but remanded the case for further action on two issues. On remand, the district judge held an evidentiary hearing and determined that Brown failed to establish a conflict with his attorney. The judge also corrected the severity level of Brown's second-degree murder conviction. Brown appealed again, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences.In 2023, Brown filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutionally imposed by a judge instead of a jury. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the illegal sentencing statute does not provide a procedural avenue for considering constitutional claims. Brown appealed, renewing his constitutional argument and raising two new arguments: that the district judge should have considered his motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 and that his sentence was illegal because it imposed postrelease supervision instead of parole.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that a sentence that does not conform to constitutional requirements does not fit within the limited, narrow statutory definition of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(c). The court also rejected Brown's argument that the judge erred in failing to consider his motion under K.S.A. 60-1507, as Brown consistently argued for relief under the illegal sentence statute. However, the court vacated the sentencing judge's pronouncement of postrelease supervision, as it was contrary to K.S.A. 22-3717(b)(2), and concluded that remand was not necessary because the journal entry of judgment complied with the statute. View "State v. Brown " on Justia Law

Two Wichita police officers stopped Gina Wilson after observing her fail to signal properly. Wilson admitted her license was suspended and refused consent to search her vehicle. Officers called for a K-9 unit, which arrived nine minutes later. The dog, Oden, indicated the presence of drugs, leading officers to search the car and find 30 oxycodone pills. Wilson was arrested and charged with possession of an opiate and driving while suspended.Wilson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Sedgwick District Court denied the motion, finding no constitutional violation as the stop was not meaningfully extended. A jury convicted Wilson. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the dog sniff did not extend the stop's duration and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that a drug dog's sniff of a vehicle's exterior is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. Since Wilson's car was legally parked and she admitted to driving with a suspended license, the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the dog's alert. The court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, concluding the search was constitutional and the evidence was properly admitted. View "State v. Wilson " on Justia Law

Ronald Johnson, serving a life sentence for a 2003 premeditated murder conviction, filed a motion in 2023 for postconviction DNA testing. Johnson was convicted of killing Dorothy Griffin, with evidence including a blood-stained Adidas jacket found in his sister's washing machine. Johnson's motion requested retesting of various items, including the washing machine hose, car parts, and the Adidas jacket, alleging that updated technology could prove his innocence.The Wyandotte District Court denied Johnson's motion. The State argued that Johnson failed to specify biological material in its possession for testing and that none of the items Johnson wanted tested were in law enforcement's custody. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, where Johnson testified and clarified his requests. The court found that Johnson did not prove the State had the items he wanted tested and denied his motion.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that Johnson's petition sufficiently stated a claim for testing only the washing machine hose, as it alleged the presence of blood. However, the petition was insufficient for other items, as it did not allege the presence of biological material. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Johnson failed to prove the State had the washing machine hose in its possession. Johnson's arguments for remand and due process violations were unpreserved and unsupported. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision denying Johnson's petition for postconviction DNA testing. View "State v. Johnson " on Justia Law

James D. Boatwright was convicted of first-degree murder, criminal discharge of a firearm, and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. The State's case relied heavily on the testimony of Boatwright's friend, who was driving the car from which Boatwright allegedly fired the fatal shots. Boatwright disputed this testimony, claiming he was not at the scene. The State presented evidence of close relationships among individuals involved, animosities, and events leading up to the shooting. Key evidence included text messages, phone calls, and a firearm linked to the crime found in Boatwright's residence.The Shawnee District Court found Boatwright guilty on all charges. Boatwright was sentenced to a hard 50 life sentence for premeditated murder, 131 months for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and a concurrent term of 59 months for criminal discharge of a firearm. Boatwright appealed, arguing errors in jury instructions and prosecutorial misconduct.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Boatwright contended the district court erred by not giving an accomplice testimony instruction. The court found no clear error, noting the jury received a general credibility instruction and that Ivy's credibility was thoroughly examined during the trial. Boatwright also argued prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the prosecutor improperly commented on his right to remain silent, accused him of lying, vouched for Ivy's credibility, shifted the burden of proof, and appealed to community interests. The court found no prosecutorial error, determining the prosecutor's statements were within permissible bounds and based on evidence presented.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Boatwright's conviction, concluding there were no errors warranting reversal. View "State v. Boatwright " on Justia Law

Kyle D. Young entered a guilty plea to two counts of premeditated first-degree murder for the shooting deaths of George Kirksey and Alicia Roman. Young and Roman had a tumultuous relationship, and after their breakup, Young tracked Roman using a device. On New Year's Day 2020, Young confronted Roman and Kirksey, but Kirksey de-escalated the situation. The next night, Young shot and killed both Kirksey and Roman. Young fled to Mexico but was later apprehended. As part of a plea agreement, the State did not pursue the death penalty and allowed Young to seek a reduced sentence.The Sedgwick District Court, presided over by Judge Jeffrey Goering, reviewed Young's motion to reduce his mandatory life sentences from a minimum of 50 years to 25 years. Young presented expert testimony about his adverse childhood experiences, psychological assessments, and his potential for rehabilitation. Family members also testified about his difficult upbringing. Despite this, the district judge concluded that Young failed to establish substantial and compelling reasons to reduce his sentences and denied the motion, sentencing him to two consecutive life sentences with a minimum of 50 years each.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and applied an abuse of discretion standard. The court considered Young's arguments, including his limited criminal history, low risk of future violence, adverse childhood experiences, and acceptance of responsibility. The court found that reasonable people could agree with the district judge's decision that none of these factors, individually or collectively, constituted substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the statutory minimum sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Young's motion for a reduced sentence and upheld his sentences. View "State v. Young " on Justia Law

During an August 2020 car chase, Adam Humphrey fired a bullet that struck a law enforcement officer's foot, causing injuries that required surgery. Humphrey pleaded no contest to aggravated battery of a law enforcement officer and received a 247-month sentence. At sentencing, the State requested over $40,000 in restitution for the officer's medical bills, but the document presented showed medical expenses of only $17,193.19, with the rest categorized under unexplained headings. Humphrey did not challenge the restitution amount at sentencing.The Saline District Court ordered the full restitution amount requested by the State. Humphrey appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the full restitution award. The Kansas Court of Appeals declined to address the merits, ruling that Humphrey's challenge was unpreserved because he did not object at sentencing.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that Humphrey's challenge was properly preserved for appellate review. The court held that substantial competent evidence must support every restitution award and that a defendant may challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting a restitution amount on appeal without first objecting at sentencing. The court found that the State's evidence did not adequately support the full restitution amount, as only $17,193.19 was explicitly labeled as medical expenses.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, vacated the district court's restitution order, and remanded the case for a restitution hearing to allow the State to present appropriate evidence to support the restitution amount. View "State v. Humphrey " on Justia Law