Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals majority's decisions to reverse the district judge's decision to suppress evidence and appropriate instructions for her further action on remand but altered the court's instructions to match those suggested in the dissent, holding that when a district judge's legal ruling in favor of the defense on a motion to suppress is infected with an obviously incorrect assessment of the State's evidence that is equivalent to an arbitrary disregard of a portion of the evidence, the district judge should have another change to review the record and explain himself or herself.Defendant was charged with drug related offenses. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the district court granted. A majority of the reviewing court of appeals panel reversed and remanded with instructions to deny the motion to suppress. Dissenting Judge Thomas E. Malone concurred in the reversal and remand but argued that the district judge should be permitted to reconsider the motion with a corrected understanding of the evidence before her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district judge should not be directed to deny Defendant's motion but to reconsider it in light of a corrected understanding of the evidence before her. View "State v. Douglas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the sentence imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant's no contest plea to felony murder, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that the sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction to set restitution later and that there were aspects of Defendant's sentence that were ambiguous and illegal.Specifically, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's consecutive sentences on his convictions for felony murder and aggravated kidnapping, vacated the portions of the district court's judgment and nunc pro tunc order indicating restitution will be imposed at a later date and imposing post release supervision on Defendant's hard twenty-five life sentence, and affirmed the district court's order that Defendant's criminal possession sentence be served concurrently with his sentences for felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault, holding that the district court erred as regard to certain aspects of Defendant's sentencing. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court summarily dismissing Defendant's pro se motion for jail credit, holding that the lower courts correctly concluded that they lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant's motion.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court and appellate courts had jurisdiction under the nunc pro tunc provision in Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504(2), which states that clerical mistakes in judgments or other parts of the record may corrected by the court at any time. The Supreme Court held (1) the words "at any time" generally means that Kansas courts have jurisdiction to determine whether a clerical error occurred even after the time for an appeal has passed, which means courts can consider Defendant's motion; but (2) Defendant failed to meet his burden to set forth facts supporting an allegation that a clerical error occurred. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the State's authority to pursue a second trial against him on criminal charges, holding that the district judge's declaration of a mistrial in this case was error and that none of the circumstances allowing a second trial under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5110 applied.Petitioner was charged with rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and four counts of intimidation of a witness or victim stemming from his alleged sexual abuse of his three-year-old granddaughter. Petitioner's first trial ended when the district judge declared a mistrial on the grounds that the alleged victim, who was then four years old, did not respond when asked to take the oath required of all witnesses. The judge allowed the case against Petitioner to be tried a second time. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner successfully established that the district judge improperly declared a mistrial and that no exception to the statutory bar to a second trial applied. View "In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's sentence for trafficking contraband in jail, holding that the district court should not have included a Missouri municipal ordinance violation for endangering the welfare of a child as a person misdemeanor when calculating Defendant's criminal history score.The district court included in Defendant's criminal history score a 2005 Missouri municipal ordinance violation for endangering the welfare of a child. This ordinance violation is not a crime under Missouri state law. On appeal, Defendant argued that the sentencing court erred in classifying her ordinance violation as a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded her case to the district court for resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in including the municipal ordinance violation in Defendant's criminal history; and (2) the error scoring the violation as a misdemeanor was not harmless. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to withdraw plea but vacated the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of his sentence, holding that the district court had no authority to order lifetime postrelease supervision and that the journal entry must be corrected to show that the district court waived the Board of Indigents' Defense Services (BIDS) administrative fee.Defendant pled guilty to two counts of felony murder, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated robbery. Thereafter, Defendant moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to two concurrent life sentences for the murders and 141 months' incarceration for the remaining crimes. The court also ordered a lifetime period of postrelease supervision and waived the BIDS attorney fee and BIDS administrative fee. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea; and (2) this case is remanded with instructions to impose lifetime parole and to correct a clerical error in the journal entry regarding the BIDS administrative fee. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of attempted capital murder, kidnapping, burglary, and interference with law enforcement but vacated the court's order that Defendant pay a percentage of the attorney fees incurred for his defense, holding that the district court violated statutory requirements by imposing the fees as a percentage without knowing what the total amount was.Specifically, the Court held (1) this Court had jurisdiction despite a misdirected notice of appeal; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing evidence about Defendant's criminal acts in Oklahoma; (3) any error on the part of the prosecutor in making certain comments during trial was harmless; (4) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury; and (5) the trial court erred in ordering Defendant to pay thirty percent of the attorney fees without knowing how much they were. View "State v. Garcia-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence in part and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court, on remand, did not comply with the mandate of the Supreme Court by changing Defendant's life sentence from running concurrent with, to consecutive to, Defendant's sentences for his two nonvacated on-grid crimes.The Supreme Court vacated the original hard fifty life sentence for Defendant's premeditated first-degree murder conviction because the sentence was unconstitutional. On remand, the district court imposed a hard twenty-five life sentence for that conviction and changed the life sentence from concurrent with, to consecutive to, the sentences for convictions for Defendant's two on-grid crimes. The court also changed Defendant's nonvacated sentences in length and sequence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence in part, holding (1) the district court erred on remand by changing the life sentence; and (2) the court also erred by modifying Defendant's two nonvacated, on-grid sentences. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court correcting Defendant's postrelease supervision term after Defendant's probation was revoked and he was ordered to serve his original sentence and the court of appeals' endorsement of that decision, holding that the district court judge did not err in correcting Defendant's postrelease term.Defendant pleaded no contest to sexual exploitation of a child and was sentenced to thirty-six months in prison and two years of postrelease supervision. The district court suspended imposition of the sentence. After Defendant committed another crime, his probation was revoked and his original sentence imposed. Thereafter, the district court ruled that Defendant should have received a lifetime postrelease term because of his plea to a sexually violent crime. The district judge then corrected the two-year postrelease term to lifetime. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district judge properly corrected Defendant's two-year postrelease term to lifetime. View "State v. Brook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of Defendant's pro se motion, which Defendant called a combined "motion to correct illegal sentence" and "motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction," holding that Defendant failed to establish that his sentence was illegal and that Defendant could not overcome the procedural hurdles of the motion being successive and filed outside the statutory time limit.In his combined motion, Defendant requested that his convictions be reversed, invoking Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504 as the basis for jurisdiction. The district court summarily dismissed the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant cannot collaterally attack a conviction through a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed under section 22-3504 claiming that a defective complaint meant the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict; (2) the district court lacked jurisdiction over Defendant's motion to dismiss; and (3) Defendant's motion could not be considered as one filed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 because such a motion is procedurally barred. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law