Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Appellant's appeal challenging his convictions, holding that the court of appeals did not err when it dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3602(a) provides that a defendant cannot appeal a conviction after pleading guilty. Appellant pleaded guilty to refusing to submit to a test to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs and driving while a habitual violator. In a second case, Appellant again pleaded guilty to refusing to submit to a test to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs and driving under the influence. Appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to render them. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a direct appeal from a guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction to review Appellant's claim. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a court of appeals panel reversing a conviction of burglary of a dwelling, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.The panel reversed Defendant's conviction based on the building owner's testimony that no one lived there when the crime occurred and that the owner had no plans to live there or rent it out. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutory definition of "dwelling" requires proof the burgled place was used as human habitation, home, or residence when the crime occurred or proof that someone had a present, subjective intent at the time of the crime to use the burgled place for such a purpose; and (2) because the State's case lacked that proof the evidence could not support the burglary conviction. View "State v. Downing" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded Defendant's case for resentencing, holding that the court of appeals properly rejected Defendant's speedy trial claim but that Defendant's sentence was erroneous.Defendant was convicted of unintentional second-degree murder. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. On remand, Defendant was again convicted of unintentional second-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that his statutory rights to a speedy trial were violated at his first trial, thereby invalidating his second trial, that the district court imposed a vindictive sentence, and that his sentence was illegal because the district court improperly scored an out-of-state conviction as a person crime. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant's last argument and otherwise affirmed, holding that Defendant's out-of-state conviction was improperly scored as a person crime. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence arising from an armed robbery in which a victim was killed by an accomplice, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's felony-murder conviction did not violate due process because the felony-murder statute does not remove from the jury's consideration an intent element required by criminal statute; (2) the district court did not commit clear error when it instructed the jury to apply the law if the State proved all elements of the charged offenses; (3) the prosecutor did not commit error during voir dire by saying that an empaneled jury could not "debate" the law; (4) Defendant's constitutional challenges to his hard twenty-five life sentence were unavailing; and (5) Defendant's Apprendi challenge to the use of criminal history scores was without merit. View "State v. Patterson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree felony murder, two counts of aggravated battery, and related offenses, holding that the district court judge properly admitted as evidence recorded jail calls made using Defendant's assigned personal identification number and that a challenged provision in the Kansas felony fleeing and eluding statute is not unconstitutionally vague.On appeal, Defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the district judge erred by admitting the jail phone calls into evidence and that Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1568(b)(1)(E), the option within a means of the felony fleeing and eluding statute dependent on five or more moving violations, is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the recorded calls as evidence in Defendant's trial; and (2) the term "moving violations" used in section 8-1568(b)(1)(E) is not unconstitutionally vague. View "State v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for felony murder based on abuse of a child, abuse of a child by shaking, and aggravated battery, holding that the district court did not err or commit judicial misconduct during the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for new trial; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Defendant's proposed expert witness for failure to satisfy the test under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); (3) the district court did not err by allowing the State to introduce evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts; (4) the district court judge did not commit judicial misconduct by sleeping during the trial; and (5) the district court did not err by prohibiting Defendant from introducing medical records that were subject to a written stipulation. View "State v. Lyman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant conviction based on a violation of the right to jury trial but affirming the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the court of appeals did not err in agreeing with the district court's conclusion that the officer had probable cause to support a reasonable belief that Defendant had been driving while intoxicated beyond the legal limit.Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery while driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless blood draw. The court of appeals reversed the conviction but affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the factors in this case supported probable cause. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding (1) probable cause existed in this case; and (2) as to the issue of whether the warrantless blood draw was justified by exigent circumstances the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing and a ruling from the district court on exigency in light of Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. __ (2019). View "State v. Chavez-Majors" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for robbery, kidnapping, and criminal threat, holding that the court of appeals panel property found that any trial errors were harmless both individually and collectively.On appeal, the panel denied Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim and affirmed the convictions, concluding that two trial errors were harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, although its reasoning differed from the panel's, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence supporting the robbery conviction; (2) there was error in two of the jury instructions, but the verdict would not have been different without the errors; (3) the cumulative effect of the instructional errors did not require reversal; and (4) Defendant did not suffer prejudice on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, holding that, even if the Court find one error and assume the existence of another, these errors did not, individually or collectively, require reversal of Defendant's conviction.Specifically, the Court held (1) the prosecutor use of the phrase "I think" qualified as error, but this brief indiscretion did not merit reversal; (2) even if the district court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte on reckless second-degree murder and reckless involuntary manslaughter, the error was not clear; (3) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were without merit; and (4) the errors - one identified and one assumed - did not cumulatively prejudice Defendant and did not deprive him of a fair trial. View "State v. Pruitt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his 1982 guilty pleas following an evidentiary hearing on the motion, holding that Defendant failed to establish a factual basis for his argument and, consequently failed to establish excusable neglect.Specifically, the Court held that Defendant did not meet his burden of establishing any facts that might conceivably support an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Defendant did not establish excusable neglect to permit his untimely filing. View "State v. Fox" on Justia Law