Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court reversing its order suppressing evidence found in the car that Defendant was driving on two separate occasions where law enforcement discovered drugs and other contraband, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reversing its suppression order but erred in admitting prior drug use.Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of possessing methamphetamine and four counts of possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to use to distribute. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on the ground that the district court erroneously allowed the State to introduce evidence relating to Defendant's prior convictions for similar crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in admitting prior drug crime evidence, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State's motion to reconsider its erroneous suppression ruling. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment the district court ruling against Defendant on his "Motion to Void Restitution, Reimbursements for Indigent Defense Services and Court Cost and Fees and Witness Fees" based on the law-of-the-case doctrine, holding that there was no error.Defendant, who was serving a life sentence for felony murder, challenged the district court's order of restitution in the amount of $37,521. The court concluded that the State had wrongly been collecting restitution from Defendant's prison account based on a clerical error and ordered it corrected. Defendant further requested that he be refunded $3,347 already improperly collected from his account. The court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. While his appeal was pending, Defendant filed the motion at issue, repeating an earlier argument that the restitution order was dormant and therefore void. The district court denied the motion, citing the law-of-the-case doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in ruling against Defendant based on the law-of-the-case doctrine. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for several crimes after he intentionally set a fire that damaged several apartments, holding, among other things, that the Kansas Legislature has defined the unit of prosecution for aggravated arson as each damaged building or property in which there is a person.Defendant intentionally set fire in the stairwell in front of his daughter's apartment, leading to his conviction, following a jury trial, of six counts of aggravated arson, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and one count of animal cruelty. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court judge violated his right to be free from double jeopardy by sentencing him on six counts of aggravated arson when the arsonist started only one fire. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was not violated; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for attempted first-degree murder; and (3) the trial judge did not err in denying Defendant's untimely motion for a new trial. View "State v. Buchanan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of a panel of the court of appeals reaching the merits of Defendant's appeal of his conviction and sentence, holding that this Court expressly overrules its prior opinion in State v. Duncan, 243 P.3d 338 (Kan. 2010), and to the extent that the panel relied on Duncan to reach the merits of the appeal the court of appeals erred.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child. The court of appeals affirmed, thus rejecting Defendant's argument that his sentence was illegal because he was not advised of and did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial on the upward departure aggravating factors. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the appeal, holding (1) a claim challenging the constitutional validity of a waiver relinquishing the statutory right under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6817(b) to have a jury determine the existence of upward departure aggravating factors falls outside the definition of an illegal sentence; and (2) absent a valid illegal sentence claim under section 22-3504, an appellate court has no jurisdiction to review a sentence resulting from an agreement between the State and the defendant that the court approves on the record. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's successive motion to correct an illegal sentence in this second appeal regarding the matter, holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred Appellant's successive claim.In 1995, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a hard forty sentence. The trial court also imposed restitution and fees. In 2013, Appellant brought a motion to correct an illegal sentence challenging the district court's procedure for ordering restitution. After the district court summarily denied the motion the Supreme Court affirmed. In 2019, Appellant brought the illegal sentence motion at issue in this appeal arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose restitution. The district court summarily denied the claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that res judicata applied, thus barring relief on Defendant's illegal-sentence motion. View "State v. Moncla" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals panel upholding a restitution plan imposed by the district court in connection with Appellant's plea of guilty to aggravated robbery of a vehicle, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden to prove that the restitution plan in his case was unworkable.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant plead guilty to aggravated burglary of a vehicle. The district court imposed a 100-month prison sentence and ordered $1,954 in restitution payable to the victim. Under the court's restitution plan, the amount was payable in monthly installments of $15. On appeal, Appellant argued that the $15 monthly payment was unworkable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant presented to evidence showing that he would be unable to make his $15 monthly payments while incarcerated Appellant did not meet his burden to prove the restitution plan to be unworkable. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of a panel of the court of appeals denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence and remanded that claim to the district court to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction, holding that the court of appeals panel erred in holding that an illegal sentence motion cannot be filed in an appellate court.Defendant was found guilty of aggravated robbery, among other charges, and sentenced to seventy-one months in prison. Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the court of appeals. The court of appeals panel denied relief. The Supreme Court reversed the panel's denial of Defendant's illegal sentence claim, holding (1) Kansas law permits a defendant to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence in an appellate court on direct appeal, and the question of remand is governed by Kan. Stat. Ann. 2022 Supp. 21-6814(d); and (2) the 2002 amendment to section 21-6814 applied, but under the circumstances of this case, the contested legal and factual issues should be first resolved in the district court. View "State v. Steinert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's wrongful conviction action brought under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-5004 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court incorrectly dismissed his suit because, among other things, factual questions remained over the application of Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-515(a) and the doctrine of equitable tolling. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to show that the district court erred by declining to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to his claim; and (2) the district court correctly dismissed Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Bell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this criminal case for resentencing, holding that the district court erred in scoring Appellant's out-of-state burglary convictions as person felonies in imposing the underlying sentence.In 2019, Appellant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine. The district court granted a dispositional departure to probation for eighteen months with an underlying forty-month prison sentence. The district court subsequently revoked probation. The sentence was based on a presentence investigation report (PSI) that documented several adult person felonies arising from New Jersey convictions. On appeal, Appellant argued that his sentence was illegal because the the State failed to prove his prior New Jersey convictions were person felonies. The court of appeal rejected the argument. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred when it scored Appellant's burglary convictions as person felonies; and (2) correctly scored Appellant's criminal trespass conviction as a person felony. View "State v. Busch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, selling sexual relations, and two counts of felony theft, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in determining that her incriminating statements made to law enforcement confessing to the murder were made voluntarily. Among other things, Defendant contended that sleep deprivation and drug use tainted her interview and that her confinement in the interview room was coercive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly held that Defendant's statements were freely, voluntarily, and knowingly given and admissible at trial; and (2) ample evidence supported the jury's finding of premeditation. View "State v. Spencer" on Justia Law