Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed its holding in State v. Guder, 267 P.3d 751 (Kan. 2012), that the statutory changes to sentencing in the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4701 et seq. (KSGA), abrogated the common law authority of district courts to modify any sentences that were not vacated on appeal.Defendant’s sentence for his premeditated first-degree murder conviction was held unconstitutional and vacated on appeal. On remand, the district court imposed a hard twenty-five life sentence for that conviction and ran it consecutive to his sentences for his two on-grid crimes. For those crimes, the district court changed Defendant’s two nonvacated sentences in length and sentence. On appeal, Defendant asserted that Guder, together with the KSGA, barred the district court from resentencing on any nonvacated counts. The Supreme Court declined the State’s request to overrule Guder and vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that, barring the need to alter a nonvacated sentence as a matter of law, the district court may only modify the vacated sentence. The court remanded this case for resentencing. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

The district court incorrectly classified two prior Florida burglary adjudications as person felonies when calculating Defendant’s criminal history score under the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act.Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery and attempted kidnapping. The district court sentenced Defendant to a total of 122 months in prison, based upon a criminal history score of A. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s sentence. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6811(e)(3), the prior Florida juvenile adjudications must be scored as nonperson felonies. View "State v. Buell" on Justia Law

The district court incorrectly classified a 1984 first-degree burglary conviction in Oregon as a person felony when calculating Defendant’s criminal history score under the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act.Defendant pled guilty to one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his pre-1993 out-of-state burglary conviction should have been scored as a nonperson felony. The district court summarily denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that the Oregon burglary conviction must be scored as a nonperson felony because the conviction was not comparable to the Kansas offense of burglary of a dwelling as it existed when Defendant committed the crime in this case. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for unintentional second-degree murder for shooting and killing his friend while they celebrated New Year’s Eve. The Court held (1) contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the statute defining unintentional second-degree murder is not unconstitutionally vague; (2) the evidence supported the jury’s finding that Defendant acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; (3) the district court’s procedure when answering a jury question did not violate Defendant’s right to be present at every critical stage of the trial, and the court’s answer to the question was not an abuse of discretion; and (4) the court’s failure to give a limiting instruction about certain evidence was not in error. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for unintentional second-degree murder for shooting and killing his friend while they celebrated New Year’s Eve. The Court held (1) contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the statute defining unintentional second-degree murder is not unconstitutionally vague; (2) the evidence supported the jury’s finding that Defendant acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; (3) the district court’s procedure when answering a jury question did not violate Defendant’s right to be present at every critical stage of the trial, and the court’s answer to the question was not an abuse of discretion; and (4) the court’s failure to give a limiting instruction about certain evidence was not in error. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The district court incorrectly sentenced Defendant by misclassifying a 1988 Missouri conviction as a person felony, and thereby, miscalculating Defendant’s criminal history score as C, when it should have been E. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, reversed the judgment of the district court, and vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) the Missouri conviction for second-degree burglary was not comparable to the Kansas offense of burglary of a dwelling; and (2) when Defendant’s current crime was committed, the State did not have a comparable offense to Missouri’s second-degree burglary, and therefore, that prior conviction had to be classified as a nonperson felony. View "State v. Wetrich" on Justia Law

The district court incorrectly sentenced Defendant by misclassifying a 2007 Michigan home invasion conviction as a person felony when calculating Defendant’s criminal history score under the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act.Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a firearm and theft. The sentencing court imposed a sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor committed two errors during closing argument, but the errors were harmless; and (2) the district court correctly classified the Michigan conviction as a person felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his sentence, holding (1) the prosecutorial error in closing argument was harmless; but (2) the Michigan conviction must be scored as a nonperson felony because the Michigan home invasion was not comparable to the Kansas offense of burglary of a dwelling as it existed when Defendant committed the crimes in this case. View "State v. Sturgis" on Justia Law

The district court erred in holding Defendant in contempt of court for invoking his constitutional right to remain silent.Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to an eighty-three-month prison sentence. After his trial was completed, the State subpoenaed Defendant to be a witness at a codefendant’s murder trial. The State granted Defendant use immunity for his testimony, and the trial judge ordered Defendant to testify in the codefendant’s trial. Defendant, however, refused the judge’s order to testify. After the codefendant was convicted, a different judge held Defendant in contempt for failing to comply with the order of the court “to appear and testify under oath as a witness.” The judge then found Defendant guilty of direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to 108 months' imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the use immunity granted to Defendant was not coextensive with Defendant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination, and therefore, the judge’s order compelling Defendant’s testimony at his codefendant’s trial violated Defendant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination and was unlawful; and (2) the ensuing order finding Defendant in direct contempt of court for refusing to testify was likewise unlawful. View "State v. Delacruz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary denial of Appellant’s pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court’s failure to hold a hearing on the motion with Appellant present did not violate the plain language of Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504 or violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6801, precludes a first-time offender from receiving the maximum sentence. The district court summarily dismissed the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had no right to a hearing or to be present for the district court’s preliminary review of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "State v. Hayes" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree premeditated murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court vacated the hard fifty sentence and remanded for resentencing, as required by Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). On remand, Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record reflecting the entire plea process supported the district court’s exercise of discretion guided by the factors set forth in State v. Edgar, 127 P.3d 986 (Kan. 2006). View "State v. DeAnda" on Justia Law