Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court dismissing the second-degree murder and aggravated battery charges against Defendant on the grounds that Defendant had reasonable grounds to believe he was in danger of great bodily harm, holding that Defendant was not entitled to immunity from prosecution under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231.A court of appeals panel reversed the decision of the district court concluding that Defendant was entitled to statutory self-defense immunity, holding that the facts as found by the district court did not support a grant of immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, on the facts as found by the district court, there was probable cause to believe Defendant's use of force was not statutorily justified. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court granting Defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss his charge of first-degree murder based on self-defense immunity, holding that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record.The State charged Defendant with first-degree premeditated murder. Defendant moved to dismiss based on self-defense immunity. After a hearing, the district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the State did not meet its burden to show probable cause that self-defense immunity did not apply. The district court made no distinct factual findings. The court of appeals panel reversed and remanded for a rehearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the circumstances of this case, the court of appeals' ruling was appropriate. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, holding that the district court did not err in its challenged instructions to the jury.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in refusing to give the jury Defendant's requested instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of first-degree murder because the instruction was not factually appropriate; and (2) the district court did not commit clear error in issuing an unmodified version of Instruction No. 11, which contained the definition of "premeditation" and mirrored PIK Crim. 4th 54.150(d) because the instruction was legally appropriate. View "State v. Uk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court on remand resentencing Defendant to his original mandatory term of imprisonment after once again finding he was not a person with intellectual disability, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected Defendant's intellectual disability motion and imposed a mandatory term of imprisonment.Defendant pled no contest to first-degree premeditated murder. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6622(b) asserting that he was a person with intellectual disability and was thus not subject to a mandatory minimum prison term. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence. While Defendant's appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Kan. Stat. Ann. 76-12b01(i), which provides new standards for deciding intellectual disability. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of Defendant's motion using the new criteria. On remand, the district court reaffirmed its earlier ruling and again sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's ruling was reasonably based on the law and was supported by substantial competent evidence. View "State v. Corbin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw plea of no contest to one count of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, holding that the district court's decision in finding no good cause for Defendant to withdraw his plea was based on errors of fact and law, which were grounds for finding abuse of discretion.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest based on misleading or false statements contained in the plea agreement. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was enough uncertainty in this case to indicate that Defendant's plea agreement was not understandingly made; and (2) therefore, Defendant must be allowed to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Frazier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of possession fo marijuana, holding that Defendant's waiver of jury trial was legally insufficient.On appeal, Defendant argued that he did not properly waive his right to a jury and asserted three other issues. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions without addressing the three remaining issues, holding that because the district court failed properly to apprise Defendant of his right to a jury trial and failed to ensure that Defendant understood the nature of the right he was giving up, Defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial was violated in this case. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for second-degree murder, burglary, and theft but reversed Defendant's sentences, holding that any error during the guilt phase was harmless but that the district court erred by scoring Defendant's prior Florida burglary conviction as a person felony instead of a nonperson felony.On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that a trial court may instruct the jury on felony murder even though the State only charged the defendant with premeditated first degree murder. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in concluding that a district court may elect to provide a felony-murder instruction when that crime was not charged, and the district court properly found that the felony-murder instruction was not legally appropriate in this case; (2) the district court erred by excluding from evidence an exculpatory document from a Florida homicide investigation on the ground it was not relevant, but the error was harmless; and (3) the district court improperly scored Defendant's prior Florida burglary conviction as a person felony. View "State v. Broxton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's probation without first imposing intermediate sanctions, holding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3716(c)(9)(B) does not apply to probationers such as Defendant, whose offenses were committed before that statute's effective date.Effective July 1, 2017, the Legislature amended section 22-3716(c)(9)(B) to permit a trial court to revoke a probationer's probation without first imposing graduated sanctions if the probation was granted as the result of a dispositional departure. Defendant's probation in the instant case was granted as a dispositional departure and was revoked on November 1, 2017. The trial court ruled that because Defendant's probation had been granted as the result of dispositional departures, the court had the authority to revoke Defendant's probation and impose the underlying sentences without first imposing intermediate sanctions. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the trial court erred in applying section 22-3716(c)(9)(B) retrospectively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err by holding that section 22-3716(c)(9)(B) does not operate retrospectively. View "State v. Coleman" on Justia Law

In this consolidated appeal challenging sentences imposed for crimes occurring both before and after statutory amendments in 2015 to the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6801, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision scoring a prior 1992 Kansas involuntary manslaughter conviction as a person felony for criminal history purposes.Defendant's direct appeal concerned two 2015 thefts committed after changes to the revised KSGA. Defendant's probation revocation appeals concerned sentences imposed thefts that occurred before 2015. The Supreme Court held that, as to the direct appeal, this Court adopts the identical-or-narrower test from State v. Wetrich, 412 P.3d 984 (2018), which should also be used for Kansas crimes committed before the sentencing guidelines used the person or nonperson designations. Using the Wetrich test, the Court held that the district court correctly classified a 1992 Kansas involuntary manslaughter conviction as a person felony in the sentencings for the 2015 thefts. As to the probation revocation appeals, the Supreme Court could held that no relief was available. View "State v. Coleman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, holding that there was sufficient evidence to prove intent to commit a robbery to support the convictions.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was not an adequate evidentiary basis for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to rob the victim at the time of the shooting. The Supreme Court first considered the evidence supporting an intent to rob, which was a necessary element for both the felony-murder and attempted aggravated robbery convictions, and then examined the evidence supporting the conspiracy conviction. The Supreme Court then held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support all the convictions; (2) the trial court erred in giving an aiding and abetting instruction, but the error was harmless; and (3) as to Defendant's remaining allegations of error, there was no error. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law