Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Grover D. James was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm for a 2015 incident where he fatally shot Leon McClennon at a birthday party in Wichita. Surveillance footage showed James entering a store basement with McClennon and others, and later walking past McClennon's collapsed body. James admitted to firing two shots but claimed he did not intend to hit anyone. Witnesses testified that the shooting was deliberate, and the jury found James guilty, sentencing him to a hard 50 life sentence for murder and a concurrent 21-month sentence for firearm possession.James filed multiple petitions for relief in the Sedgwick District Court, including claims of newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that an affidavit from a witness, Rance Kindred, recanting his statements to police warranted a new trial. The district court denied these petitions, finding that the evidence could have been produced at trial and was unlikely to change the outcome. James also claimed ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel, arguing that his attorneys failed to protect his speedy trial rights and did not adequately challenge continuances. The district court denied these claims without an evidentiary hearing.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that James did not meet the burden of showing that the newly discovered evidence could not have been produced at trial or that it would likely result in a different outcome. The court also found no merit in James' ineffective assistance claims, noting that his speedy trial rights were not violated and that his appellate counsel's performance was not deficient. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying James' motions and affirmed the denial of relief. View "State v. James" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers arrested the appellant, Crista Hinostroza, and transported her to the Lyon County jail, where a small handgun was discovered concealed in her bra. Hinostroza was charged with trafficking contraband into a correctional facility, possession of a weapon by a felon, interference with a law enforcement officer, and battery on a law enforcement officer. At trial, the State presented evidence including bodycam videos, photographs of the jail, and testimony from officers and the jail captain. Hinostroza testified that she did not disclose the gun to the officers because she was uncomfortable with male officers touching her and believed the female staff at the jail would find it during their search.The Lyon District Court convicted Hinostroza of criminal possession of a firearm, trafficking contraband in a correctional facility, and interference with a law enforcement officer. She was acquitted of battery on a law enforcement officer. Hinostroza appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of intent and voluntariness, lack of individualized notice of contraband rules, and improper jury instructions. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that an arrestee who consciously acts to conceal and carry contraband into a correctional facility acts voluntarily. It found that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, supported the conclusion that Hinostroza intentionally introduced the gun into the jail. The court also held that the jail provided adequate notice of what constituted contraband through posted signs and Hinostroza's prior knowledge of the jail's rules. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the jury should have been instructed on the requirement of individualized notice, finding no legal basis for such an instruction. View "State v. Hinostroza" on Justia Law

On February 17, 2019, Justin Gaston was shot and killed in a motel parking lot in Wichita, Kansas. Investigators arrested Christopher D. Kemmerly based on circumstantial evidence, including messages from his phone and statements from his girlfriend, Reyna Wallace, and Christopher Breedlove. Kemmerly was charged with felony murder, criminal possession of a weapon, theft, and arson. After a five-day trial, a jury found him guilty. Kemmerly moved for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the district court granted. At his second trial, Kemmerly chose to represent himself and was again found guilty on all charges.The Sedgwick District Court initially allowed Kemmerly to represent himself after a thorough colloquy to ensure his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. During the second trial, Kemmerly requested counsel midtrial, which the court denied, citing the disruption and delay it would cause. The court found that Kemmerly's waiver of his right to counsel was valid and that his midtrial request for counsel was untimely.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the district court did not violate Kemmerly's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by allowing him to represent himself, as the waiver was knowing and intelligent. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Kemmerly's midtrial request for counsel, as it would have caused significant disruption. Additionally, the court ruled that sufficient evidence supported Kemmerly's convictions, and it declined to address his constitutional challenge to K.S.A. 21-6304(a)(3)(A) because it was not raised in the lower court. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Kemmerly's convictions and sentence. View "State v. Kemmerly" on Justia Law

Christopher Michael Jacobson pled guilty to one count of robbery for an incident that occurred in December 2013. He was sentenced in May 2015 to 130 months in prison based on a criminal history score of A. In 2019, Jacobson moved to correct his sentence, arguing that his criminal history score was incorrect. The district court denied his motion, but during the appeal process, the parties agreed that his sentence was illegal. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to exclude certain Missouri municipal ordinance violations from his criminal history score. At resentencing, the district court applied the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing and reduced his sentence to 120 months.The Court of Appeals vacated the new sentence and remanded the case again, directing the district court to apply a more recent legal standard from State v. Wetrich, which would classify Jacobson's Missouri convictions as nonperson crimes. The State petitioned for review, arguing that the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing should apply, as established in State v. Clark.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing determines the legality of a sentence when a case arises from a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in treating Jacobson's resentencing as a direct appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the district court's application of the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing, which was consistent with the precedent set in Clark. View "State v. Jacobson" on Justia Law

Becky Anne Wilson was prosecuted for financial theft from her employer, Valley Hope Association. She pled guilty to three felonies: theft by deception, making a false information, and attempted theft by deception. The district court sentenced her to 24 months' probation for each conviction and ordered her to pay $65,864 in restitution with interest. Twenty-three months into her probation, the court revoked it and ordered her to serve consecutive prison sentences for each felony. Wilson appealed, arguing that the probation terms for the two lower-level felonies could not be revoked as she had completed their statutory terms and also challenged the interest order.The Kansas Court of Appeals agreed with Wilson, holding that the district court overstepped its authority by extending her probation until full restitution was paid and that the interest order was illegal. The State sought review from the Kansas Supreme Court.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the probation issue, holding that the district court properly extended Wilson's probation until she fully paid her restitution obligation, thus having jurisdiction to revoke her probation and impose the prison terms. However, on the interest issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals but on different grounds. The Supreme Court held that while K.S.A. 21-6604(b)(1) permits monetary interest as part of restitution when evidence shows it is a damage or loss caused by the defendant's crime, the district court in this case did not make the necessary findings to support the causal connection for the interest award. Therefore, the interest portion of the restitution order was vacated. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

A few days after Thanksgiving in 2018, Zshavon Malik Dotson shot and killed his friend Ronald "R.J." Marks Jr. at R.J.'s home in Kansas City. Dotson and R.J. had struggled over R.J.'s rifle, and Dotson shot R.J. in the kitchen after gaining control of the weapon. Dotson claimed he acted in self-defense, while R.J.'s mother, Carolyn Marks, testified that Dotson was the aggressor. A jury found Dotson guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated battery.The Wyandotte District Court, presided over by Judge Wesley K. Griffin, sentenced Dotson to life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 25 years. Dotson appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and errors in jury instructions. He also contended that first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder are identical offenses under Kansas law.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed Dotson's convictions. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of premeditation, noting Dotson's actions before and during the struggle. The court acknowledged minor prosecutorial misstatements about premeditation but deemed them harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found no merit in Dotson's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as he failed to show that any alleged deficiencies affected the trial's outcome. Additionally, the court ruled that the jury instructions were legally sufficient and not misleading. Finally, the court rejected Dotson's identical-offense argument, reaffirming that premeditated first-degree murder and intentional second-degree murder are not identical offenses under Kansas law. View "State v. Dotson" on Justia Law

Ryan Reynolds broke into his estranged wife's house, armed with a handgun, and confined his wife, their daughter, and his wife's sister-in-law, threatening to kill them. The two women escaped with the child, and police apprehended Reynolds as he was leaving. A jury convicted him of multiple crimes, including aggravated burglary and aggravated endangering a child.The Shawnee District Court sentenced Reynolds to 180 months in prison. Reynolds appealed, challenging his convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated child endangerment. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed these convictions but reversed his criminal threat conviction. Reynolds and the State both sought further review.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with Reynolds that the district court presented the aggravated burglary charge as an alternative means crime by referring to both a building and a dwelling. However, the court rejected the automatic reversal rule from State v. Wright, which required substantial evidence for each means. Instead, the court adopted a harmless error analysis, concluding that the jury would have reached the same verdict even without the error. The court also held that the aggravated burglary instruction listing three felonies (kidnapping, aggravated assault, or criminal threat) was legally and factually appropriate.Regarding the aggravated endangering a child charge, the court found no error in the jury instruction, despite Reynolds' argument that "causing or permitting" created alternative means. The court held that the instruction was legally and factually appropriate.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Shawnee District Court on the issues subject to review. View "State v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The case involves Davontra Alston, who was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, felony first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle for his role in the 2020 shooting death of D'Angelo Payne in Topeka. The State's theory was that Alston conspired with Diquan Clayton, his cousin, and James Boatwright to murder Payne and that he aided and abetted Boatwright and others in the murder. The State built a circumstantial case based on evidence that Clayton and Alston resented Payne's relationship with Danielle Morrison and they felt Payne had disrespected Morrison, Alston, and his family.The district court denied Alston's motion to dismiss the murder and conspiracy convictions as multiplicitous. Alston argued his conviction for conspiracy to commit premeditated murder "covers all the conduct alleged by the State which was attributable directly to" him and his remaining three convictions should be set aside. Alston also filed a motion for a new trial, alleging several trial errors. The district court denied both motions but determined Alston's felony murder conviction merged with his first-degree premeditated murder.In the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, Alston argued that his conviction for premeditated first-degree murder under an aiding and abetting theory is duplicitous of his conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. He also contended that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial in which he argues the State mischaracterized evidence, the district court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence, and the State committed prosecutorial error. The court rejected Alston's claims and affirmed his convictions. View "State v. Alston" on Justia Law

David Cornell Bennett Jr. pleaded guilty to one count of capital murder and three counts of premeditated first-degree murder in December 2017. As part of the plea agreement, Bennett waived his appellate rights. In June 2020, Bennett filed a pro se motion requesting a hearing under State v. Ortiz, alleging that his appointed counsel failed to file an appeal as requested following his sentencing hearing. The State argued that Bennett had already waived his appellate rights under the plea agreement. The district court denied Bennett's motion, finding that Bennett had knowingly waived his appellate rights.The district court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Bennett argued that his waiver of appellate rights was ambiguous and that he was entitled to a late appeal under the criteria set forth in Ortiz. The Supreme Court reviewed the facts underlying the district court's ruling for substantial competent evidence and the legal conclusion made by the district court on those facts as to whether the exception applies was reviewed de novo.The Supreme Court found that Bennett was properly informed of his rights and what he was waiving. The court noted that Bennett received the sentence contemplated in the plea agreement and filed no timely appeal. The court also found that Bennett had not explained why he should be allowed to appeal on any grounds two and a half years out of time. The court concluded that Bennett had not shown that he could qualify for a late appeal under the Ortiz criteria. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court, denying Bennett's motion for a late appeal. View "State v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Darrick S. Harris, serving a life sentence for first-degree murder and aggravated battery committed during a prison riot in 1993, petitioned the district court for forensic testing of objects used in the murder under K.S.A. 21-2512. Harris hoped to find unknown biological material on these objects that could be subject to DNA testing. However, the State claimed it no longer had possession of the items. The district court ruled Harris' motions moot as the items he sought to test were no longer in the State's possession. Harris then filed a motion requesting discharge from incarceration, alleging that the State's inability to comply with his request for DNA testing created an adverse inference that his DNA was not present, which should be deemed sufficient to constitute exoneration. The district court denied this motion, holding there was no evidence the State acted in bad faith in failing to preserve the evidence.Harris appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, arguing that the State's failure to retain physical evidence violated his due process rights. He also argued that the district court erred by not ordering the DNA testing of the biological material that was in the State's possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the second issue, stating that Harris had explicitly informed the court he was not seeking testing of the swabs.Regarding Harris' spoliation claim, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, but for different reasons. The court held that K.S.A. 21-2512 does not provide a vehicle for a claim on the facts presented by Harris. The court also noted that Harris' claim, even if construed as a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507, was procedurally barred by the one-year time limitation of K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-1507(f), and Harris had presented no argument for an exception. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Harris' motion. View "State v. Harris " on Justia Law