Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree felony murder, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder after a jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for fifteen years. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence showed he had consensual sex with the victim and then left before any alleged robbery, kidnapping, or murder occurred. Therefore, he argued, the State failed to offer sufficient evidence to support any of the underlying felonies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. View "State v. Rucker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree murder under theories of premeditation and felony murder, attempted first-degree murder, and other offenses, holding that the district court did not err in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant was not entitled to a change of venue under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2616; and (2) the district court did not violate Defendant's Fifth Amendment rights when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress his confession because Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his previously invoked right to counsel and because the confession was voluntary. View "State v. Palacio" 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 an illegal sentence, holding that Defendant's sentence, which was legal when it was imposed, was not illegal due to subsequent changes in the law.Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted rape. At sentencing, the district court determined that Defendant had a criminal history score of B in part due to a prior California robbery conviction, which the Kansas court classified as a person felony. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the district court incorrectly calculated his criminal history score by classifying his California conviction as a person felony contrary to recent changes in the law. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where Defendant's sentence was legal when it was pronounced, it was not illegal because the law subsequently changed. View "State v. Newton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence on the ground that incriminating evidence was obtained as the result of an unlawful seizure, holding that officers unlawfully detained Defendant and conducted an illegal search.Defendant was seated in a car lawfully parked in an apartment complex parking lot when two officers approached the car. Defendant's hands were clenched and held in front of him, and one officer commanded Defendant to open his hand. Defendant opened his hand and dropped a small bag of cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, but the district court denied the motion, finding that the encounter was voluntary. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the detention was unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain Defendant, and therefore, the evidence obtained as a result must be suppressed because it was tainted by an unlawful seizure. View "State v. Andrade-Reyes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that the district court's error in denying Defendant's request for an instruction on imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter was harmless, holding that the error was reversible because there was a reasonable probability that it affected the trial's outcome.Defendant, who had schizophrenia, killed a man who entered his apartment to exterminate bugs because he felt irrationally threatened by the victim. At issue during trial was whether Defendant's mental condition precluded him from forming a culpable mental state. The jury found Defendant guilty of reckless second-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the district court erred when it failed to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction - an intentional killing done with the unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed justifying the deadly force - but that the instructional error was harmless under the so-called "skip rule." The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court's error in failing to give an imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter instruction was reversible because the jury could have reasonably convicted Defendant of voluntary manslaughter. View "State v. Barrett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the sentencing court properly classified Defendant's 1976 Michigan conviction as a person crime in accordance with State v. Murdock, 439 P.3d 307 (Kan. 2019).Defendant pleaded guilty to a 2007 attempted robbery. A presentence investigation (PSI) revealed that Defendant had two prior convictions - a 1976 Michigan conviction for assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct and a 1979 Michigan conviction for criminal sexual conduct. The previous convictions were scored as person felonies, giving Defendant a criminal history score of B. In 2014, Defendant filed his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that both Michigan convictions should have been scored as nonperson felonies based on recent changes in law. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in accordance with Murdock, which holds that a sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes. View "State v. Weber" on Justia Law