Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for aggravated kidnapping and vacated his sentence for that conviction but affirmed the remainder of his convictions, holding that the State did not present sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's aggravated kidnapping conviction.Defendant appealed his convictions to the court of appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Defendant's disruptive pretrial behavior provided a lawful basis for the district court to deny Defendant's request to represent himself at trial; (2) Defendant's aggravated kidnapping conviction was supported by insufficient evidence; (3) the jury instructions on the lesser-included offenses of aggravated battery were not factually appropriate, but the instructional error did not warrant reversal of Defendant's aggravated battery conviction; and (4) the cumulative effect of the trial errors did not require reversal. View "State v. Couch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of a panel of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction for aggravated kidnapping, thus reaffirming that the three-part test fashioned in State v. Buggs, 547 P.2d 720 (Kan. 1976), to ensure that a defendant is not convicted of two crimes for identical conduct when a person confines someone with the intent to facilitate the commission of another crime, did not apply to circumstances such as those presented in this case.Under the Buggs test, a kidnapping conviction cannot stand if the confinement was "incidental to" or "inherent in the nature of" the other crime or if the confinement did not make commission of the other crime "substantially easier." The court of appeals concluded that the test applied to kidnappings, like Defendant's, committed with the intent to inflict bodily harm to terrorize a person. The court of appeals panel concluded that, under the Buggs test, insufficient evidence supported Defendant's aggravated kidnapping conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Buggs test did not apply to this case, where Defendant had confined the victim with the intent to inflict bodily harm or terrorize her. View "State v. Butler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled the holding in State v. Watson, 885 P.2d 1226 (1994) that the State can convict a defendant for attempted aggravated burglary without proving the defendant intended to enter an occupied dwelling, concluding that this holding is contrary to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5301(a).On appeal from his conviction, Defendant argued that Watson's holding was contrary to section 21-5301(a), which imposes a specific intent requirement for all elements of the crime of attempted burglary. The Supreme Court agreed and overruled Watson's holding but, at the same time, affirmed Defendant's conviction for attempted aggravated burglary, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence that Defendant intended to enter a dwelling that was occupied at the time he committed an overt act. View "State v. Larsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court reversing its order suppressing evidence found in the car that Defendant was driving on two separate occasions where law enforcement discovered drugs and other contraband, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reversing its suppression order but erred in admitting prior drug use.Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of possessing methamphetamine and four counts of possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to use to distribute. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on the ground that the district court erroneously allowed the State to introduce evidence relating to Defendant's prior convictions for similar crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in admitting prior drug crime evidence, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State's motion to reconsider its erroneous suppression ruling. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment the district court ruling against Defendant on his "Motion to Void Restitution, Reimbursements for Indigent Defense Services and Court Cost and Fees and Witness Fees" based on the law-of-the-case doctrine, holding that there was no error.Defendant, who was serving a life sentence for felony murder, challenged the district court's order of restitution in the amount of $37,521. The court concluded that the State had wrongly been collecting restitution from Defendant's prison account based on a clerical error and ordered it corrected. Defendant further requested that he be refunded $3,347 already improperly collected from his account. The court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. While his appeal was pending, Defendant filed the motion at issue, repeating an earlier argument that the restitution order was dormant and therefore void. The district court denied the motion, citing the law-of-the-case doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in ruling against Defendant based on the law-of-the-case doctrine. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for several crimes after he intentionally set a fire that damaged several apartments, holding, among other things, that the Kansas Legislature has defined the unit of prosecution for aggravated arson as each damaged building or property in which there is a person.Defendant intentionally set fire in the stairwell in front of his daughter's apartment, leading to his conviction, following a jury trial, of six counts of aggravated arson, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and one count of animal cruelty. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court judge violated his right to be free from double jeopardy by sentencing him on six counts of aggravated arson when the arsonist started only one fire. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was not violated; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for attempted first-degree murder; and (3) the trial judge did not err in denying Defendant's untimely motion for a new trial. View "State v. Buchanan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of a panel of the court of appeals reaching the merits of Defendant's appeal of his conviction and sentence, holding that this Court expressly overrules its prior opinion in State v. Duncan, 243 P.3d 338 (Kan. 2010), and to the extent that the panel relied on Duncan to reach the merits of the appeal the court of appeals erred.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child. The court of appeals affirmed, thus rejecting Defendant's argument that his sentence was illegal because he was not advised of and did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial on the upward departure aggravating factors. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the appeal, holding (1) a claim challenging the constitutional validity of a waiver relinquishing the statutory right under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6817(b) to have a jury determine the existence of upward departure aggravating factors falls outside the definition of an illegal sentence; and (2) absent a valid illegal sentence claim under section 22-3504, an appellate court has no jurisdiction to review a sentence resulting from an agreement between the State and the defendant that the court approves on the record. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's successive motion to correct an illegal sentence in this second appeal regarding the matter, holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred Appellant's successive claim.In 1995, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a hard forty sentence. The trial court also imposed restitution and fees. In 2013, Appellant brought a motion to correct an illegal sentence challenging the district court's procedure for ordering restitution. After the district court summarily denied the motion the Supreme Court affirmed. In 2019, Appellant brought the illegal sentence motion at issue in this appeal arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose restitution. The district court summarily denied the claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that res judicata applied, thus barring relief on Defendant's illegal-sentence motion. View "State v. Moncla" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals panel upholding a restitution plan imposed by the district court in connection with Appellant's plea of guilty to aggravated robbery of a vehicle, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden to prove that the restitution plan in his case was unworkable.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant plead guilty to aggravated burglary of a vehicle. The district court imposed a 100-month prison sentence and ordered $1,954 in restitution payable to the victim. Under the court's restitution plan, the amount was payable in monthly installments of $15. On appeal, Appellant argued that the $15 monthly payment was unworkable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant presented to evidence showing that he would be unable to make his $15 monthly payments while incarcerated Appellant did not meet his burden to prove the restitution plan to be unworkable. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of a panel of the court of appeals denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence and remanded that claim to the district court to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction, holding that the court of appeals panel erred in holding that an illegal sentence motion cannot be filed in an appellate court.Defendant was found guilty of aggravated robbery, among other charges, and sentenced to seventy-one months in prison. Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the court of appeals. The court of appeals panel denied relief. The Supreme Court reversed the panel's denial of Defendant's illegal sentence claim, holding (1) Kansas law permits a defendant to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence in an appellate court on direct appeal, and the question of remand is governed by Kan. Stat. Ann. 2022 Supp. 21-6814(d); and (2) the 2002 amendment to section 21-6814 applied, but under the circumstances of this case, the contested legal and factual issues should be first resolved in the district court. View "State v. Steinert" on Justia Law