Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court rejecting Defendant's claim that he was entitled to a new trial without holding a hearing on the merits of his claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), holding that the district court abused its discretion by denying Defendant's motion on the grounds that he was not legally authorized to hear the merits of the Brady claim.In his motion, Defendant alleged that important information undermining the testimony of the State's star trial witness came to light for the first time while the case was on remand to the district court for resentencing. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, concluding that the request for relief based on the Brady claim fell outside the statutory time limit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Kansas' mandate rule did not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of Defendant's claims; and (2) there was no final judgment under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3501(1) in this case, and therefore, the district judge failed to recognize that he was legally authorized to hear the merits of the Brady claim. View "State v. Soto" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that a police officer's discovery of an expired tag on Defendant's vehicle did not present an intervening circumstance that attenuated the taint of the officer's unconstitutional seizure of Defendant.Defendant was unconstitutionally detained by a police officer. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that officers obtained incriminating evidence as the result of an unlawful seizure. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Defendant's initial seizure was unsupported by reasonable suspicion but that the United States Supreme Court's attenuation doctrine analysis in Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. __ (2016), applied to allow the admission of the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no attenuation of the taint of the illegal seizure, and therefore, the district court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Christian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute it, holding that the State provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because a mistake of fact existed, namely, that Defendant believed the packet she sold contained lawful incense, not a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State was required to prove that Defendant had knowledge of the nature of the controlled substance she possessed; and (2) the State proved through circumstantial evidence that Defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance. View "State v. Rizal" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, and felony abuse of a child, holding that none of Defendant's claims of error warranted reversal of his convictions.Specifically, the Court held (1) a comment made by the prosecutor during closing argument was a misstatement that did not effectively shift the burden of proof, and there was no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict; (2) any error in failing to offer a lesser concluded offense instruction on unintentional but reckless second-degree murder was harmless; (3) the district court did not err in admitting two recorded jail calls between Defendant and his mother into evidence; and (4) Defendant's pro se arguments were insufficiently preserved for appellate review. View "Stewart v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of distributing a controlled substance and conspiring to distribute a controlled substance, holding that the court did not err in instructing the jury and denying Defendant's motion for acquittal.On appeal, Defendant challenged the conspiracy jury instruction, which alleged five overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, arguing that the instruction presented either a multiple acts or alternative means problem. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no unanimity instruction was required because alleging several overt acts in furtherance of one conspiracy does not present a multiple acts case; (2) a jury instruction that lists several overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy does not create alternative means for the crime of conspiracy; (3) Defendant invited any jury instruction error; and (4) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion for acquittal. View "State v. Cottrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's 2015 motion to correct an illegal sentence with respect to his 1997 jury trial conviction for rape, holding that Defendant was attempting to avail himself of a subsequent change in law.In his motion, Defendant argued that his sentence was based on an incorrectly calculated criminal history score because a pre-Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act burglary conviction was erroneously classified as a person felony. The district court summarily dismissed the petition, stating that because the sentence was final long before the decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015), these cases did not apply to Defendant's case retroactively. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals' affirmance of the district court's summary denial of Defendant's motion to correct and illegal sentence was not in error. View "State v. Dawson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence and pro se motion to withdraw his plea filed more than a decade after Defendant's felony-murder conviction, holding that the district court did not err when it considered the State's written responses to Defendant's motions without appointing counsel to represent him.The State filed written responses to Defendant's motions, arguing that the district court could summarily deny the motions without appointing counsel for Defendant, that his sentencing challenge fell outside the scope of an illegal sentence, and that his plea withdrawal motion was untimely and failed to show excusable neglect. The district court summarily denied the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's statutory right to counsel was not triggered for either motion because the district court did not find a substantial issue of law or triable issue of fact in them; and (2) summary denial was appropriate as to the two motions. View "State v. Laughlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's pro se Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion after considering a written response by the State, holding that the district court did not violate Defendant's due process rights when it failed to appoint counsel to represent him and that summary denial was appropriate because Defendant failed to establish a manifest injustice to excuse his untimely filing.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant's due process rights were not violated when the district court did not appoint counsel to represent him; (2) Defendant failed to establish manifest injustice to exclude his untimely motion; and (3) no remand was required to resolve Defendant's sovereign citizen claim. View "Requena v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court's summary denial of Defendant's 2015 motions to correct his allegedly illegal sentences imposed in 1996, holding that subsequent changes in the law did not render Defendant's sentences illegal for purposes of a Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504(1) motion to correct an illegal sentence.In his section 22-3504 motions Defendant asserted that his sentences were barred on an incorrect criminal score because his pre-Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) burglary convictions should have been classified as nonperson felonies. In denying Defendant's motions, the district court found them to be procedurally barred. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that, pursuant to the Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Dickey, 380 P.3d 230 (Kan. 2016) (Dickey II), the motions were not procedurally barred and that Dickey II required that Defendant's pre-KSGA convictions be classified as nonperson felonies. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's sentences were legal when pronounced and were final before the change in the law upon which Defendant relied, and therefore, the district court correctly denied Defendant's section 22-3504 motions. View "State v. McAlister" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's pro se Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion, holding that Defendant's due process rights were not violated and that summary denial was appropriate.After Defendant filed his section 60-1507 motion the State filed a written response asking the district court to summarily deny the motion because the motion was untimely, Defendant's claims were conclusory, and Defendant failed to establish a manifest injustice. The district court summarily denied the motion three days later. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate due process when it declined to appoint counsel for Defendant; and (2) summary denial was appropriate in this case. View "Sherwood v. State" on Justia Law