Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner entered a plea of no contest to charges of second-degree intentional murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Later, Petitioner was placed in administrative segregation in response to threats of gang violence and possible involvement in contraband trafficking. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his continued administrative custody, lasting over 1,000 days, violated his due process rights. The district court dismissed the petition. The court of appeals affirmed, ruling that, without at least a prima facie showing of unusually harsh conditions, continued incarceration in segregated custody does not infringe on a protected liberty interest. The Supreme Court granted in part Petitioner’s petition for review. Noting that Petitioner was no longer placed in administrative segregation, the Court denied relief, as Petitioner’s request for relief was moot, but the Court nevertheless issued this opinion to provide guidance to courts as they countered liberty interest claims in the future. The Court then concluded that duration of segregated placement is a factor that courts must consider in determining whether an inmate has met the standards for demonstrating a liberty interest infraction. View "Jamerson v. Heimgartner" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate, was disciplined for violating K.A.R. 44-12-301, the regulatory prohibition on fighting. Petitioner filed a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1501 petition against the warden of the correctional facility where Petitioner was incarcerated, arguing that his due process rights were violated because the finding by the hearing officer that Petitioner violated K.A.R. 44-12-301 was unsupported by the evidence. The district court reversed the disciplinary hearing panel’s findings, ruling that the hearing officer could not have reasonably found Petitioner guilty. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that Petitioner was not accorded due process when he was found to have violated K.A.R. 44-12-301, as there was a complete failure of proof of one of the elements of the offense. View "May v. Cline" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in 2008 of one count of DUI. Defendant’s 2008 conviction was classified as a fourth DUI. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and a mandatory fine. The court of appeals vacated the sentence and “remanded for resentencing,” concluding that the district court erred by failing to consider community service in lieu of a direct payment of the fine. Before the district court held the remand hearing, the legislature in 2011 amended the DUI lookback provisions so that, at the time of the remand hearing, Defendant would have been resentenced for a first DUI rather than a fourth DUI. In 2012, the district court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to resentence Defendant and allowed him to perform community service in lieu of a direct payment of the fine. Defendant appealed, arguing for a retroactive application of the 2011 amendment to his 2008 conviction. The court of appeals denied relief. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. Reese. On remand, the court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s sentence for a fourth DUI conviction, concluding that Defendant was neither sentenced nor resentenced in 2012. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was never resentenced, and therefore, his claim to the benefit of the 2011 lookback period failed. View "State v. Tafoya" on Justia Law

In 2011, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant for a methamphetamine laboratory in Gregory Rosa's home in Leavenworth County. The house had four long-term residents. Rosa and Maureen Evans were in a relationship at the time and lived together in the upstairs master bedroom where they were found during the raid. Randall Smith lived in a bedroom on the main floor. Smith was found hiding behind a water heater in the basement. Joshua Sigler also lived in the house but was not present during the raid. Brian Brice and O'rian Heckman were also in the house in a separate bedroom during the raid. Neither lived at the house, but both would sometimes "crash there." Rosa owned the home and paid the utilities. Smith, Sigler, and Evans did not lease their rooms or otherwise pay rent. The State prosecuted Rosa on the theory that he possessed the methamphetamine found in his house. The State intended to prove its case by demonstrating that Rosa owned and exercised general control over all areas in the house and that he knew methamphetamine was in the house. Rosa did not deny he owned the premises or that the drugs were found there. Rosa challenged his conviction for possession of methamphetamine on three grounds: (1) the evidence was insufficient; (2) evidence of his prior drug use was improperly admitted; and (3) prosecutorial misconduct. The Kansas Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed Rosa's conviction. View "Kansas v. Rosa" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Tyrone Walker of first-degree premeditated murder for the killing of Janis Sanders. Sanders was discovered in the overgrown grass behind a vacant home apparently strangled to death; her personal effect were discovered in a nearby dumpster. The State presented DNA evidence from three different samples taken from the victim's body. The jury also heard about a prior strangulation homicide committed by Walker. Walker appealed, attacking instructional errors and alleging his sentence was unconstitutional. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Walker's conviction and sentence and held: (1) any error by the district court in failing to provide a lesser included instruction was harmless; (2) the State did not err during closing argument; (3) while the district court should have suppressed Walker's statements from the interrogation after he invoked his right to remain silent, the error was harmless; (4) cumulative error did not deny Walker a fair trial; and (5) Walker's hard 50 sentence was not unconstitutional. View "Kansas v. Walker" on Justia Law

Defendant Anson Bernhardt appealed his conviction for premeditated first-degree murder. Bernhardt raised three issues on appeal, arguing the district judge erred by: (1) adding language to a pattern jury instruction defining premeditation; (2) giving two separate jury instructions on intentional second-degree murder and reckless second-degree murder instead of a single instruction covering both theories; and (3) failing to instruct on voluntary manslaughter. He also claimed the cumulative effect of these errors deprived him a fair trial. Defendant further contended the district judge erred by applying the 2013 amendments to Kansas' hard 50 sentencing scheme retroactively, and he challenged the aggravating circumstances ultimately relied upon to support imposition of his hard 50 sentence. After review, the Kansas Supreme Court held there was no error and affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Kansas v. Bernhardt" on Justia Law

Ebony Nguyen appealed the district court's denial of her motion for a downward durational departure of her life sentence for felony murder. Nguyen unwittingly received counterfeit money from Jordan Turner in exchange for her marijuana. Upon discovering the deception and with the assistance of three others, Nguyen retaliated by luring Turner to a secluded location where he was shot and killed. With kidnapping serving as the underlying felony, Nguyen pled no contest to one count of felony murder. The Kansas Supreme Court found that because the district court had no discretion to depart, it rejected Nguyen's arguments and affirmed. View "Kansas v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant later filed a second motion to correct an illegal sentence based on Alleyne v. United States and State v. Soto. The district court granted Defendant’s motion, concluding that the sentencing procedure violated Alleyne. The court then sentenced Defendant to a life term without eligibility for parole for a minimum of forty years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the decisions in Alleyne and Soto do not render judgments illegal that were final before those decisions were issued. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated endangering a child, and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State’s failure to charge Defendant specifically with “aiding and abetting” aggravated assault and aggravated child endangerment offenses and the State’s oral amendment to the felony-murder charge did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction; (2) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s felony-murder conviction; (3) the jury instructions did not require reversal; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the case detective to sit at or near the prosecution’s table during trial and its decision to exempt the case detective from a sequestration order did not prejudice Defendant; and (5) the cumulative error doctrine did not require reversal of Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Dupree" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession with marijuana with the intent to distribute. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence resulting from a search of a house where he was staying. The search was conducted pursuant to an anticipatory search warrant which purported to give law enforcement authority to search the house once a suspicious package was successfully delivered to a resident of the house. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause and that Defendant’s retrieval of the package from the front porch while under police surveillance was sufficient to trigger execution of the search warrant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was a substantial basis for the district court judge’s determination that probable cause supported a search warrant of the home; (2) the event triggering execution of the search warrant - a controlled delivery of the package to a resident of the home - occurred in this case; and (3) the police acted appropriately when they entered the house pursuant to the search warrant. View "State v. Mullen" on Justia Law