Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's summary denial of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the lower courts did not err or abuse their discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court's construing Defendant's motion consistent with its form and the substance of its content, rather than as a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion, was not in error; (2) the district court followed proper statutory procedures for imposing a departure sentence, and therefore, Defendant's sentence was not illegal; and (3) the district court did not err by summarily denying the motion without appointment of counsel for Defendant. View "State v. Redding" on Justia Law

In this consolidated appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's motion to be discharged from custody, filed in his underlying criminal case, and Defendant's civil Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion, holding that the lower courts did not err in denying relief.On appeal, Defendant did not dispute the court of appeals' findings with respect to the district court's denial of his motion to be discharged from custody in his underlying criminal case. With respect to the denial of his section 60-1507 motion, Defendant argued that he should be able to argue certain exceptions warranted review of his untimely and successive motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in summarily denying Defendant's section 60-1507 motion as untimely and successive. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's 2014 motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence imposed twenty years earlier, holding that Defendant's 1991 New Mexico juvenile conviction for burglary as a person felony was legal when pronounced and was final before the change in the law upon which he relied to establish the illegality of his sentence.In his petition, Defendant argued that the Supreme Court's holding in State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015) (Dickey I), should be retroactively applied to his 1994 sentence, making it a nonperson felony. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, determining that because Defendant's sentence was final nearly four years before Apprendi v. New Jersy, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), was decided, Dickey I and State v. Dickey, 380 P.3d 230 (Kan. 2016) (Dickey II), did not apply to him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant could not avail himself of Apprendi, which was a subsequent change in the law for purposes of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "State v. Tauer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that, while certain errors occurred in Defendant's case, the errors were not reversible, either standing alone or cumulatively.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on reckless second-degree murder and reckless involuntary manslaughter, but the errors were harmless; (2) the district judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense involuntary manslaughter, but the error was harmless; (3) the district judge did not err by failing to instruct the jury to consider lesser included crimes simultaneously; (4) the district judge did not err by admitting autopsy photographs into evidence; (5) the prosecutor erred in describing a car as stolen, but the error was harmless; (6) any assumed error arising from Defendant's absence from continuance hearings would be reversible; and (7) Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions under the cumulative error doctrine. View "State v. James" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals remanding Defendant's case for a jury trial on whether a firearm sentence enhancement was appropriate and vacated Defendant's sentence after he pled no contest to drug offenses, holding that the district court must reconsider its decision classifying a prior Florida battery conviction as a person felony and that the resentencing should proceed without the firearm enhancement.The court of appeals concluded that the district court properly calculated Defendant's criminal history score but held that Defendant invalidly waived his right to a jury trial on the firearm enhancement. The Supreme Court vacated the sentences and remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) applying the clarified standard of review in State v. Wetrich, 412 P.3d 984 (Kan. 2018), the district court erred in classifying Defendant's Florida battery conviction as a person crime; and (2) the court of appeals erred by remanding Defendant's case for a jury to determine if the firearm enhancement should apply. View "State v. Obregon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of a majority of the court of appeals panel reversing in part and affirming in part the district court's decision on Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, holding that neither Defendant's pre-Miranda statement nor his post-Miranda statement were admissible in evidence.The district court found admissible Defendant's pre-Miranda statement that he had marijuana on his person but suppressed Defendant's pre-Miranda statement that he had marijuana in his car. The district court also ruled that Defendant's post-Miranda statements were admissible because at that point Defendant had voluntarily waived his rights. The court then ruled that Defendant's pre-Miranda statement about the marijuana on his person was admissible and that the doctrines of plain view and inevitable discovery applied to the evidence in Defendant's car. The court of appeals set aside Defendant's convictions and ordered a new trial, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his post-Miranda statement as coerced. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the pre-Miranda statement Defendant made surrounding his initial pat-down was not admissible as evidence because he was being interrogated in custody at the time; and (2) Defendant's post-Miranda statement was inadmissible due to implied physical violence toward Defendant. View "State v. Guein" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed decision of the court of appeals affirming the sentencing court's classification of Defendant's prior misdemeanor convictions for violating a City of Wichita municipal ordinance as person offenses to calculate Defendant's criminal history score, holding that the court of appeals did not err when it held that the district court properly classified the municipal violations as person offenses because the Wichita domestic battery ordinance is narrower than the comparable state statute.Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by classifying four of his prior municipal ordinance convictions, including domestic battery convictions, as person offenses because the domestic battery ordinances were broader than the counterpart Kansas statute. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, applying State v. Weitrich, 412 P.3d 984 (Kan. 2018), to this case, the court of appeals correctly held that Defendant's previous domestic battery ordinance violations were person offenses. View "State v. Russ" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that Petitioner's pro se motion quoting Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.3 did not trigger the district court's duty to inquire into a potential conflict between Petitioner and his appointed attorney, holding that, assuming error, there was no showing of prejudice.Petitioner was charged with two counts of commercial sexual exploitation of a child. The district court determined that Petitioner was indigent and appointed a public defender to represent him. The jury found Defendant guilty of one count of commercial sexual exploitation of a child. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred by failing to inquire into his pro se motions voicing dissatisfaction with counsel. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Petitioner's pro se documents did not convey a request for new counsel. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Petitioner's pro se motions quoting KRPC 1.3 did not allege dissatisfaction with counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, assuming that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to inquire about Petitioner's dissatisfaction with counsel, Petitioner's alleged conflict with counsel did not prejudice Defendant in any way. View "State v. Bacon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to correct his sentence several years after it was imposed, holding that State v. Murdock, 439 P.3d 307 (Kan. 2019), barred relief.In his motion to correct his sentence, Defendant argued that the sentencing court improperly scored a prior Wyoming conviction as a person crime. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Wyoming conviction was appropriately classified as a person crime on the date the current crime was committed. At issue on appeal was whether the new rule announced in State v. Wetrich, 412 P.3d 984 (Kan. 2018), applied to Defendant's sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Wetrich did not apply because, under Murdock, a sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes. View "State v. Dubry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder, attempted aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a life sentence with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years for the felony murder conviction and 100 months' imprisonment for the attempted aggravated kidnapping, ordering it to run consecutive to Defendant's sentence for felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, this district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6819(b). View "State v. Darrah" on Justia Law