Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jeffrey Sperry, an inmate at the Lansing Correctional Facility (LCF), filed a lawsuit seeking civil damages from the LCF Warden and the Secretary of Corrections, alleging that he had been exposed to lead paint and asbestos while incarcerated at LCF. The district court dismissed all claims except Sperry’s claims against the Warden and Secretary in their individual capacities. Approximately two years later, the district court dismissed all remaining claims when ruling on multiple motions to dismiss filed by the Warden and Secretary. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of Sperry’s state law claims and reversed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim. The Warden and Secretary petitioned for review, arguing that the district court and court of appeals erred in considering material outside the pleadings when ruling on motions to dismiss. Sperry cross-petitioned for review, arguing that the lower courts erred in ruling that his failure to attach proof that he exhausted his administrative remedies required dismissing his state law claims. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision that Sperry’s claims must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, holding that the district court and court of appeals erred in not enforcing the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 141, and the error was not harmless. View "Sperry v. McKune" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and additional counts of aggravated assault and criminal discharge of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it failed to give lesser included offense instructions relating to the attempted first-degree murder convictions; (2) the district court did not err when it failed to instruct that felony murder does not occur when a co-felon’s death results from a third party’s legal act of self-defense; (3) the prosecutor did not improperly comment during closing arguments that Defendant did not want the jury to know he and others involved in the murder were gang members; and (4) Defendant’s life sentence was not illegal under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6819(b)(4). View "State v. Louis" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to the crime of eluding a police officer. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that he had misunderstood the plea agreement and that his misunderstanding was based on conversations with his former attorney. The motion was denied. The court of appeals affirmed the denial. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred, in part, because it relied on incorrect factual assumptions. The Supreme Court agreed an reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion because it based its conclusions, in substantial part, on errors of fact. View "State v. Schaal" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in declining to inquire into his pretrial motion for substitute counsel. The Supreme Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue. On remand, the district court rejected Defendant’s arguments, concluding that Defendant had not established a conflict or justifiable dissatisfaction with his attorney. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant did not carry his burden to show justifiable dissatisfaction with his trial attorney. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of abuse of a child and two counts of aggravated battery. The district court later revoked Appellant’s probation and imposed the underlying consecutive sentences for his convictions. Appellant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the prison sentences were illegal because they violated the double base-sentence rule in Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4720(b)(4). The Court of Appeals that the district court had imposed an illegal sentence, concluding that the trial judge should have sentenced Appellant to a maximum of sixty-eight months’ imprisonment, rather than a total of 102 months in prison, which was three times the base sentence of his primary crime. Appellant petitioned for review and filed a motion to remand, arguing that he was entitled to an immediate resentencing because he had served the maximum legal total sentence that could be imposed in this case. Here, the Supreme Court determined that the petition for review was improvidently granted and explained this decision in more than just a few words, as the circumstances of this case warranted instruction about procedures on remand and the effect of this decision. View "State v. Eisenhour" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of identity theft and felony theft. Defendant appealed, arguing, in part, that the district court judge erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a law enforcement car stop. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that a suspicious character tip such as that motivating the car stop at issue was not enough to support reasonable suspicion of a crime, but reasonable suspicion nonetheless existed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to support the stop of the car Defendant was driving, and therefore, Defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. View "State v. Chapman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred by not granting his motion to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol content obtained from a breath test. Specifically, Defendant alleged that he had been unconstitutionally coerced into submitting to the test because officers threatened to obtain a warrant for a blood test when the officers could have lawfully obtained the warrant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kansas law permits law enforcement officers to to obtain a warrant for a blood draw after a breath test refusal, and therefore, the threat to do so was not coercive. View "City of Dodge City v. Webb" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder, aggravated burglary, and attempted rape. The district court imposed the death sentence for the capital murder conviction and time in prison for the remaining convictions. The Supreme Court remanded after finding reversible error relating to Defendant’s capital sentence. After a new sentencing proceeding, the district court imposed the death sentence for the capital murder conviction and prison sentences for the remaining convictions. Defendant appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s capital murder conviction and his death sentence but reversed Defendant’s attempted rape conviction as multiplicitous, vacated his sentence for attempted rape, and remanded for resentencing on the other conviction of aggravated burglary, holding that an intervening change in the law required reversal of Defendant’s attempted rape conviction. View "State v. Kleypas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of capital murder by intentionally killing the victim during the commission of, or subsequent to, the crime of attempted rape, attempted rape, and aggravated arson. The district court imposed a sentenced of death for the murder conviction. During the pendency of this appeal, Defendant died in prison. The Supreme Court decided that only three issues should be addressed on appeal that could posthumously exonerate Defendant on one or more of his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the evidence in the record was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions for capital murder and aggravated arson; but (2) Defendant’s attempted rape conviction was multiplicitous with his conviction for capital murder. View "State v. Belt" on Justia Law

After Defendant was convicted of felony theft, a district court hearing was held to pronounce sentence on Defendant and to consider the State’s motions to revoke Defendant’s probation in four earlier cases based on his new conviction. That hearing resulted in several appellate court opinions, this decision being the fourth of them. At the hearing, Defendant was sentenced for his felony conviction, and Defendant’s probation in the prior cases was revoked. All of the sentences pronounced during the hearing were based on Defendant’s criminal history score as reflected on presentence investigation reports. Defendant appealed from the revocation of his probation in three cases, arguing that the district court imposed illegal underlying sentences premised on an erroneous criminal history score resulting from a misclassification of a prior conviction as a person felony. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated Defendant’s sentences, holding that the prior conviction at issue was misclassified as a person felony, and therefore, the resulting sentences were illegal. View "State v. Dickey" on Justia Law