Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals disposing of Defendant’s appeal exclusively on the ground that Defendant’s constitutional claim was not preserved for appeal.Defendant pled no contest to attempted kidnapping and domestic battery. Defendant was required to register as a violent offender for life pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). During the lower court proceedings, Defendant acknowledged that registration “is not considered punishment.” On appeal, Defendant argued, for the first time, that retroactive application of KORA’s lifetime registration violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the merits of Defendant’s claims, concluding that Defendant invited error regarding his ex post facto claim when he conceded that registration was not punishment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s claim was not preserved for appeal. View "State v. Daniel" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for capital murder and his sentence of death. The court held (1) the State did not commit prosecutorial error by objecting during Defendant’s closing argument; (2) the district court judge engaged in one incident of judicial misconduct, but the error did not require reversal; (3) the district judge erred in refusing to give a requested expert witness instruction, but the error was harmless; (4) Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3220 did not unconstitutionally abrogate Kansas’ former insanity defense; (5) the district judge did not err in failing to give a lesser included instruction on felony murder; (6) the district judge did not prohibit defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors during voir dire about their views on the death penalty; (7) the cumulative effect of trial errors did not deny Defendant a fair trial; (8) the Kansas death penalty is not a categorically disproportionate punishment for offenders who are “severely mentally ill” at the time they commit their crimes; (9) the aggravating factors supporting the death penalty are not unconstitutionally vague or duplicative; and (10) sufficient evidence supported the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance. View "State v. Kahler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence Defendant received in connection with his guilty plea to two counts of first-degree felony murder. The district court imposed consecutive hard twenty-five life sentences, meaning that Defendant would not be eligible for parole for fifty years. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by refusing to run his sentences consecutive to each other. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that neither Defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, his expression of remorse, or other considerations led to the conclusion that the district court’s decision was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. View "State v. Brune" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for resentencing, in which Defendant argued that Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), rendered his hard forty sentence unconstitutional.After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison with no possibility of parole for forty years. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence in 2007. In 2016, Defendant filed a motion for resentencing, asserting that his sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to Alleyne. The district court construed Defendant’s motion as a collateral challenge under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 and concluded that Defendant was not entitled to relief because Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to a sentence that was final when Alleyne was decided. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that whether Defendant’s pleading was construed as a motion to correct an illegal sentence or a collateral attack under section 60-1507(b), Defendant was not entitled to relief because Alleyne did not render his sentence unconstitutional. View "State v. Albright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing, holding that the district court erred in ordering postrelease supervision rather than parole.On appeal, Defendant raised numerous arguments relating to her defense that she was not criminally responsible because a mental disease or defect prevented her from forming the culpable mental state necessary to convict her of first-degree premeditated murder, including several jury instruction issues. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court committed one instructional error, but the error was harmless. The Supreme Court then rejected all but one of Defendant’s sentencing issues but remanded the case for resentencing because the district court erred in ordering postrelease supervision rather than parole. View "State v. McLinn" on Justia Law

A Kansas court may proceed with a hearing on a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion after a defendant’s term of probation has expired and the defendant has been released from physical custody.In her pro se motion filed under section 60-1507, Defendant argued that her counsel provided ineffective assistance during her criminal proceedings. The district court summarily denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, ruling that Defendant’s release from probation did not deprive the courts of jurisdiction but concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s argument that her section 60-1507 counsel was ineffective because the issue was not included in the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court had jurisdiction over Defendant’s appeal even where she had been released from custody; (2) the court of appeals erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine Defendant’s ineffective assistance of section 60-1507 counsel claim; (3) it was not clear from the record whether section 60-1507 counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) summary denial of Defendant’s 60-1407 motion was appropriate. View "Mundy v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant’s convictions for theft by deception and making false information, holding that there was insufficient evidence supporting the convictions.One issue in this appellate challenge was whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the actual elements of making false information, regardless of whether it could have successfully prosecuted Defendant for forgery. The Supreme Court held (1) the State did not prove that Defendant committed theft by deception; and (2) the State failed to meet its burden to prove the first element of the crime of making false information, and therefore, Defendant’s conviction must be reversed. View "State v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to nine months’ imprisonment, awarding him credit for his nearly twelve months of pretrial confinement, and imposing eighteen months’ probation. The court of appeals did not address whether sentencing Defendant to probation was in error and in violation of his double jeopardy rights, ruling that his sentence was a presumptive one under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act and thus beyond judicial review. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, holding (1) Defendant was not challenging a presumptive sentence, so review was appropriate; and (2) because Defendant’s sentence of confinement had already been served, probation was improper. View "State v. Kinder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and illegal use of a communication facility but vacated the portion of Defendant’s sentence imposing lifetime postrelease supervision and remanded the case for resentencing. The court held (1) the district court did not err when it did denied Defendant’s request to provide the jury with a lesser included offense instruction of voluntary manslaughter; but (2) the district court imposed illegal sentences in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3717 when it ordered lifetime postrelease supervision. View "State v. Ruiz-Ascencio" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary denial of Defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504(1), thus rejecting Defendant’s argument that his sentence was illegal because he was subjected to unequal treatment in a manner constitutionally prohibited. The district court summarily denied Defendant’s motion. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing under Kan. Stat. 21-6620(e). The Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the merits of Defendant’s argument regarding section 21-6620, holding (1) a defendant cannot raise constitutional challenges to a sentence via a section 22-3504(1) motion; and (2) as to any other issues, Defendant has waived or abandoned those arguments. View "State v. Amos" on Justia Law