Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court’s modification of its originally ordered period of postrelease supervision after the original term of supervision had ended and vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that Defendant was entitled to be discharged from custody.The Court held that because the original sentence had been completely served when the district court purported to correct Defendant’s sentence, the imposition of a new sentence was precluded by the double jeopardy provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The Court remanded this case with directions to discharge Defendant. View "State v. Lehman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence for driving under the influence (DUI) based on two prior convictions for DUI, holding that a prior municipal court conviction for DUI under a Wichita ordinance prohibiting operation of a vehicle under certain circumstances cannot be used to enhance a sentence for a DUI conviction under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1567.The Supreme Court already addressed the issue in this case in State v. Gensler, 423 P.3d 488 (Kan. 2018). Here, the Supreme Court held that because the Wichita ordinance prohibits a broader range of conduct than the Kansas statute, Defendant’s prior municipal DUI convictions could not be used for sentencing purposes for her current DUI prosecuted under section 8-1567. The Court remanded this case for resentencing. View "State v. Lamone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court’s revocation of Defendant’s probation and order to serve his underlying prison sentence, holding that the district court failed to follow the applicable statutory provisions governing probation revocation.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in applying the intermediate sanctions to his second probation violation and that the court of appeals erred in determining that the district court had made the particularized findings required to permit it to bypass intermediate sanctions under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3716. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the record reflected a failure to set forth the reasons an intermediate sanction would have been a public safety issue or contrary to Defendant’s welfare. The Court remanded the matter for a new dispositional hearing to comply with section 22-3716. View "State v. Clapp" on Justia Law

At issue was the legal limits of a district judge’s sentencing power after probation revocation.The Supreme Court held in this appeal and in a similar case decided today, State v. Sandoval, __ P.3d __ (this day decided), that (1) after revoking a criminal defendant’s probation, a district judge may choose to sentence anew, even if some aspect of the original sentence was illegal due to a failure to match a mandatory statutory minimum; and (2) if a new sentence is pronounced from the bench after probation revocation, the original illegality no longer exists and, therefore, the new sentence is not subject to correction or challenge under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504. View "State v. Roth" on Justia Law

At issue was the legal limits of a district judge’s sentencing power after probation revocation.The Supreme Court held in this appeal and in a similar case decided today, State v. Roth, __ P.3d __, that (1) after revoking a criminal defendant’s probation, a district judge may choose to sentence anew, even if some aspect of the original sentence was illegal due to a failure to match a mandatory statutory minimum; and (2) in the alternative, a judge may require the defendant simply to serve the original sentence.The Court further held (1) if a new sentence is pronounced from the bench after probation revocation, the original illegality no longer exists and, therefore, the new sentence is not subject to correction or challenge under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504; and (2) if the judge, in the alternative, requires the defendant to serve the original sentence, any original illegality continues to exist and is subject to correction or challenge under section 22-3504. View "State v. Sandoval" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s hard twenty-five life sentence specified by Jessica’s Law under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6627, holding that the district court abused its discretion by relying on factual determinations not properly established by an evidentiary record.This was Defendant’s second appeal from a denial of his motion for downward departure from his hard twenty-five life sentence. The district court here denied the motion after concluding that the asserted mitigating circumstances did not justify departure. The court based its reasoning in part on information gathered from a probable cause affidavit filed by the State with the initial complaint and from unsworn statements made by the victim’s family at sentencing. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding that the district court abused its discretion by relying on factual determinations not properly established by an evidentiary record. View "State v. Atkisson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendant’s request for a downward departure from the hard twenty-five life sentence under Jessica’s Law and, in so holding, clarified the process for district court consideration of motions to depart under Jessica’s Law.Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under fourteen, a conviction that carried a hard twenty-five life sentence under Jessica’s Law. At sentencing, Defendant requested a downward departure to 29.5 months’ imprisonment. The district court denied Defendant’s motion and imposed the hard twenty-five life sentence. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the record was ambiguous as to whether the district court weighed evidence about an uncharged prior molestation against Defendant’s evidence in mitigation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the record did not establish that the district court abused its discretion by improperly weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and (2) district courts considering a departure motion need not affirmatively state they are not weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. View "State v. Powell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress drug evidence law enforcement officers discovered after searching a car Kimberly Motley was driving and in which Defendant was a passenger, holding that the facts available to the officers when Motley consented to the search were sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe Motley had authority over the passenger floorboard and zipper bag on the floorboard.The search of the passenger floorboard of the car revealed a black zipper bag, inside of which were methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. The officers later learned the zipper bag belonged to Defendant. Defendant was convicted of possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress because it was unreasonable for the officers to believe that Motley’s consent extended to the search of the zipper bag. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that when Motley gave her consent, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe Motley had authority over the zipper bag. View "State v. Boggess" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to file a late appeal, holding that the district court improperly considered irrelevant, outside the record information in deciding that Defendant’s testimony that he told his trial counsel he wanted to appeal was not credible.On appeal, Defendant asked the Supreme Court to reverse the district court’s decision and allow his appeal to be filed out of time, arguing that the trial court arbitrarily disregarded his testimony that he told his trial counsel that he wanted to appeal immediately, evidence that would help him meet an exception to the rule requiring timely appeal. The Supreme Court reversed without performing the particular analysis requested by Defendant, holding that two actions suggested bias or prejudice sufficient to corrode this Court’s confidence in the district court’s ruling that Defendant was not credible. The Court remanded the case to a different judge to make the credibility determination anew. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of first-degree premeditated murder of his wife and his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for fifty years, holding that there was no reversible error in the trial proceedings.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant did not appropriately object to the State’s attempt to rehabilitate a jailhouse informant’s credibility; (2) the district court did not err in admitting testimony from another witness who described Defendant as controlling of his wife; (3) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on heat of passion voluntary manslaughter; and (4) no cumulative error occurred. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law