Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the district court's summary denial of Defendant's second Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion and remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective, holding that the court of appeals applied an incorrect standard to determine whether the district court should have considered a second or successive motion.In his second section 60-1507 motion Defendant argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a defense of mental defect and to request jury instructions regarding the defense of mental defect. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a hearing on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Defendant's mental defect defense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that the district court did not have to find exceptional circumstances to consider the merits of Defendant's section 60-1507 motion. View "Littlejohn v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions of stalking and criminal threat, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held that the court of appeals did not err in (1) concluding that a rational fact-finder could have found all of the elements necessary to determine that Defendant was guilty of stalking, as charged; (2) failing to address Defendant's claim that he was entitled to an instruction and argument regarding a defense that the victim waived her right to enforce a protection from abuse order; (3) concluding that the district court did not err in failing to give the jury a limiting instruction concerning a protection from abuse court order; and (4) refusing to grant Defendant a new trial due to cumulative error. View "State v. Chavez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court's summary denial of Defendant's untimely pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, holding that Defendant did not raise a colorable claim to excuse his untimely filing.The court of appeals recognized that Defendant's motion was untimely but concluded that Defendant had shown that extension of the one-year time period for filing his motion was necessary to prevent a manifest injustice. The court then remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant failed to establish manifest injustice, and therefore, the district court did not err in summarily denying the motion. View "Noyce v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision that affirmed the sentencing court's imposition of an extended probation term as being a legal sentence notwithstanding the sentencing court's reliance on an inapplicable statutory provision, holding that Defendant's sentence was illegal because the court of appeals refused to apply the mandatory precedent of State v. Whitesell, 13 P.3d 887 (Kan. 2000).Whitesell required the sentencing court to state for the record substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the presumptive duration of probation. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court's failure to state its reasons in imposing a departure sentence resulted in an illegal sentence. The court of appeals affirmed after recognizing that Whitesell applied departure sentencing procedures to an increased probation term, declaring that Whitesell no longer controlled due to changes in the law. The Supreme Court disagreed and vacated the probation portion of Defendant's sentence, holding that the court of appeals' decision overruling this Court's holding was an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Hambright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision affirming the district court's summary denial of Defendant's motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence but reversed its erroneous holding that it could not consider the legality of Defendant's other four prior Illinois convictions, holding that an appellate court has the authority to consider an illegal sentence issue raised for the first time on appeal.Before the district court, Defendant argued that five of his prior Illinois convictions were improperly classified as person felonies in his Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act criminal history calculation. The court of appeals rejected Defendant's challenge to the classification of one of his prior convictions but refused to consider the legality of the other four convictions on the grounds that those challenges were made for the first time on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals (1) properly concluded that one of Defendant's prior convictions was properly scored as a person felony; but (2) erred when it declined to consider the legality of Defendant's sentence from the perspective of the classification of all five prior Illinois convictions. View "State v. Sartin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence in each of three docketed cases in this appeal and remanded each for resentencing, holding that the sentencing court erred in classifying two Arkansas misdemeanors as person offenses when determining Defendant's criminal history score after he pleaded guilty to three counts of felony theft and one count of attempted aggravated burglary.The court of appeals held that Defendant's Arkansas false imprisonment conviction was properly scored as a person crime but vacated the sentences because the record was unclear what statute or subsection Defendant's Arkansas battery offense arose under. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there is no comparable Kansas person crime to the Arkansas false imprisonment conviction, and therefore, the lower courts erred when concluding that the Arkansas offense should be classified as a person crime; and (2) insufficient evidence supported the person-crime classification for the Arkansas battery conviction because the record did not reflect which statutory provision Defendant was convicted under. Therefore, remand was required for the district court to conduct further proceedings before classifying the Arkansas battery conviction. View "State v. Ewing" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's classification of Defendant's prior Washington state residential burglary conviction as a person felony, holding that the Washington offense's intent element was broader than that required to commit a Kansas person crime.Defendant pleaded guilty to two drug-related felony convictions that occurred in 2014. In 2016, the district court held a sentencing hearing. The court calculated a criminal history score of B, based in part on classifying as a person felony a 2003 Washington conviction for residential burglary. After Defendant was sentenced he appealed, arguing that the sentencing court erred in classifying his Washington residential burglary conviction as a person felony because the Washington statute was broader than the Kansas burglary statute. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's prior residential burglary must be scored as a nonperson felony under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6811(e)(3). View "State v. Saucedo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's two criminal threat convictions and his domestic battery conviction and reversing Defendant's aggravated assault conviction, holding that, although the Court's reasoning differed from the court of appeals on Defendant's Brady claim, the court of appeals reached the right result.On appeal, Defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor had not timely disclosed a disciplinary report of a deputy sheriff involved in the incident. The court of appeals rejected Defendant's Brady argument in part because the prosecutor had not "suppressed" the report. The Supreme Court held (1) although the court of appeals' reasoning was infirm the court properly rejected Defendant's Brady claim because there was no reasonable probability that Defendant would not have been convicted if the report had been produced to the defense earlier; (2) there was no double jeopardy or multiplicity problem regarding Defendant's two convictions of criminal threat; (3) the prosecutor made an improper statement during closing argument, but the error did not contribute to the verdict; and (4) the district judge did not err by refusing to recall the jury or by denying Defendant's related motion for a new trial. View "State v. Hirsh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the district court suppressing evidence obtained after police officers unconstitutionally detained Defendant, holding that the court of appeals erred in applying the attenuation doctrine under the facts of this case.In suppressing evidence obtained in a search of Defendant the district court concluded that police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant. The court of appeals agreed but determined that the attenuation doctrine applied. Specifically, the court concluded that the officers' discovery of a preexisting arrest warrant after they seized and search Defendant attenuated the taint of the unconstitutional seizure. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officers' duty to execute the arrest warrant did not attenuate the taint of the unlawful seizure. View "State v. Sanders" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court suppressing derived from a search because it found that the search resulted directly from a police officer's unconstitutional seizure of Defendant, holding that this case must be remanded to the district court for further findings of fact.Applying the attenuation doctrine factors set forth by the United States Supreme Court, the district court suppressed the evidence at issue. The court of appeals reversed the district court's ultimate decision, finding that an intervening circumstance attenuated the taint of the unlawful seizure and thus did not invalidate the later search. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to consider the officer's discovery of an arrest warrant as a circumstance that intervened between the officer's illegal detention of Defendant and his search of her purse after arresting her; and (2) because there remained unanswered questions of fact, the case is remanded for the district court to make the appropriate findings of fact under the correct legal standard. View "State v. Tatro" on Justia Law