Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1983, Defendant was charged with felony murder and aggravated robbery. Prior to trial, the district court ordered and Defendant received a competency evaluation. The record, however, did not reflect that the district court conducted the mandated competency hearing mandated by Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3302. Defendant was subsequently convicted. In 2009, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him due to the court’s failure to conduct a competency hearing. The district court denied the motion, but the Supreme Court remanded the case. On remand, the district court conducted a retrospective competency hearing and found that Defendant was competent to stand trial in 1983. The court then denied Defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not exceed the Murray I mandate; and (2) the district court did not err in determining that the retrospective competency hearing could rectify the procedural due process error in Defendant’s underlying case. View "State v. Murray" on Justia Law

In 1983, Defendant was charged with felony murder and aggravated robbery. Prior to trial, the district court ordered and Defendant received a competency evaluation. The record, however, did not reflect that the district court conducted the mandated competency hearing mandated by Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3302. Defendant was subsequently convicted. In 2009, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him due to the court’s failure to conduct a competency hearing. The district court denied the motion, but the Supreme Court remanded the case. On remand, the district court conducted a retrospective competency hearing and found that Defendant was competent to stand trial in 1983. The court then denied Defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not exceed the Murray I mandate; and (2) the district court did not err in determining that the retrospective competency hearing could rectify the procedural due process error in Defendant’s underlying case. View "State v. Murray" on Justia Law

In Ford I, a district court presiding over Defendant’s criminal case ordered and received a competency evaluation. There was no record of a subsequent competency hearing, and yet the court did not suspend proceedings pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3302. Rather, the court accepted Defendant’s guilty plea and sentenced him. In Ford II, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the Ford I court lacked jurisdiction to convict him. The Ford II court denied Defendant’s motion after conducting a retrospective competency hearing and finding that Defendant had been competent when he entered his plea. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) future movants cannot use a motion to correct an illegal sentence to claim a violation of section 22-3302; (2) under the facts of this case, a meaningful retrospective competency hearing could rectify the district court’s failure to comply with section 22-3302 during Ford I; but (3) because Defendant was not present for the Ford II retrospective competency hearing and there was no indication he waived his right to be present, the procedural competency error had not been rectified. Remanded. View "State v. Ford" on Justia Law

In Ford I, a district court presiding over Defendant’s criminal case ordered and received a competency evaluation. There was no record of a subsequent competency hearing, and yet the court did not suspend proceedings pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3302. Rather, the court accepted Defendant’s guilty plea and sentenced him. In Ford II, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the Ford I court lacked jurisdiction to convict him. The Ford II court denied Defendant’s motion after conducting a retrospective competency hearing and finding that Defendant had been competent when he entered his plea. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) future movants cannot use a motion to correct an illegal sentence to claim a violation of section 22-3302; (2) under the facts of this case, a meaningful retrospective competency hearing could rectify the district court’s failure to comply with section 22-3302 during Ford I; but (3) because Defendant was not present for the Ford II retrospective competency hearing and there was no indication he waived his right to be present, the procedural competency error had not been rectified. Remanded. View "State v. Ford" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and first-degree murder. The jury could not reach a unanimous decision as to whether the murder was premeditated or committed during the course of the robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err by instructing the jury that it could convict Defendant of first-degree murder based on the combined theories of premeditated and felony murder; (2) the jury was not precluded from convicting Defendant of first-degree murder based on both alternative means of felony and premeditated murder based on the prosecutor’s closing argument; and (3) the district court did not err by refusing to suppress items seized pursuant to a search warrant that was obtained with statements made by Defendant apart from his un-Mirandized confessions. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s appeal; (2) the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury that it must make a specific finding whether that the aggravated burglary offense was so distinct from the homicide as to not be an ingredient of the homicide; (3) Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of evidence on the alternative means of aggravated battery failed; (4) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on second-degree unintentional murder and involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses of felony murder; (5) the district judge did not err in refusing to give a requested voluntary intoxication instruction; and (6) the district judge did not err in admitting certain hearsay evidence during trial. View "State v. Reed" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery and child abuse for shaking or roughly handling his two-month-old daughter. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the trial court’s admission under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455 of prior instances where Defendant had shaken his daughter was not reversible; (2) the trial court did not commit clear error in giving a jury instruction that limited the jury’s consideration of evidence admitted under section 60-455; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during her closing arguments but the error did not affect the verdict; (4) Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the trial court improperly accepted the jury’s verdict under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3421; (5) the two instances of prosecutorial misconduct did not substantially prejudice Defendant; and (6) Defendant’s criminal history score did not need to be proven to a jury in order for it to affect his sentence. View "State v. Barber" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years and lifetime postrelease supervision for the aggravated indecent liberties conviction and to a concurrent term of 155 months’ imprisonment and lifetime postrelease supervision for the attempted aggravated indecent liberties conviction. The court of appeals vacated the lifetime postrelease supervision and otherwise affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s argument that the district court erred in excluding certain evidence was not preserved for appellate review; (2) the aggravated indecent liberties statute does not create an alternative means crime; (3) the prosecutor’s comment during closing arguments that “Today, you have the power to say to [the victim], ‘We believe you’” was an impermissible attempt to engender sympathy for the victim, but the error was harmless; and (4) Defendant’s hard-twenty-five prison sentence is constitutional under the state and federal constitutions. View "State v. Swint" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated child endangerment. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction under the arson statute; (2) the arson statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Defendant; (3) the prosecutor did not engage in impermissible misconduct during closing arguments; and (4) Defendant failed to preserve for appeal his argument that the trial court erred in admitting several out-of-court statements that the victim made in the days leading up to the fire. View "State v. Bollinger" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty in Saline County District Court to nonresidential burglary, possession of stolen marijuana, and possession of stolen property. The district court judge ordered that Defendant’s sentences in Saline County run consecutive to a sentence Defendant received for a Dickinson County conviction that was imposed the previous day. After Defendant’s probation was revoked, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge lacked the statutory authority to make his Saline County sentences run consecutive to his Dickinson County sentence. The judge denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in light of State v. Chronister, Defendant’s sentences conformed to Kansas law and were not illegal. View "State v. Quested" on Justia Law