Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that there was no error.Defendant was convicted of rape and aggravated incest for sexual encounters with his then-minor stepdaughter between 2005 and 2009. Defendant was sentenced in 2011 to a term of 400 months' imprisonment. Defendant's criminal history score was based in part on a 1992 Illinois armed robbery conviction designated as a person felony. Relying on the Supreme Court's 2014 decision that all out-of-state convictions before 1993 must be classified as nonperson offenses Defendant filed his motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing that his 1992 Illinois conviction should have been classified as a nonperson felony. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that subsequent statutory amendments in response to the Court's decision operated retroactively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's criminal history score was correctly calculated, and Defendant's sentence was not illegal under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence for aggravated kidnapping, holding that the district court judge did not err in applying the statutory departure factor set forth in Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6815(c)(2)(F)(i).Defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of rape, and one count of aggravated sodomy. The district court doubled the presumptive sentence for aggravated kidnapping after finding two aggravating factors. Defendant appealed, arguing that neither aggravating factor applied. The Supreme Court rejected Defendant's arguments, holding that the district court did not err in applying the statutory departure factor in section 21-6815(c)(2)(F)(i). View "State v. Newman-Caddell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of possessing firearms by a felon and one count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute but reversed his conviction of one count of driving with a suspended license, holding that the evidence did not support the suspended license conviction.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant's statements during an interrogation were voluntary and admissible at trial; (2) the district court's failure to obtain a jury trial waiver before an elemental stipulation was not structural, and the error did not affect the trial's outcome; (3) the lower courts did not err in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective in pursuing a guilt-based defense; (4) there was no clear error in the jury instructions; and (5) the State failed to present evidence of a necessary element of the crime of driving while Defendant's license was suspended. View "State v. Bentley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's convictions, holding that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial error during closing argument, and the State failed to carry its burden to prove the error was harmless to those convictions that required the State to prove Defendant's intent to distribute.The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for driving while suspended and aggravated child endangerment but reversed his conviction for possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, holding (1) this Court declines to reach the merits of Defendant's instructional challenge and his constitutional challenge to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5705(e)(2); and (2) the prosecutor erred by mischaracterizing the permissive inference jury instruction during closing argument, and the State failed to carry its burden to prove this error was harmless. View "State v. Slusser" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5705, holding that the district court erroneously instructed the jury, but the error did not require reversal under the clear error standard.A subsection of 21-5705 provides for a rebuttable presumption of intent to distribute if a defendant possesses 3.5 grams or more of methamphetamine. At Defendant's criminal trial, the State presented evidence that Defendant possessed more than eleven grams of methamphetamine, but the district court's instruction was a slightly modified version of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5705(e)(2). The Supreme Court held (1) the district court's instruction was erroneous because it did not accurately describe section 21-5705(e)'s mandatory presumption, but the error did not require reversal; and (2) Defendant's constitutional challenge to his sentence was foreclosed by precedent. View "State v. Strong" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeal upholding Defendant's convictions for, among other things, possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, holding that multiple errors in the jury instructions given at Defendant's trial did not warrant reversal of Defendant's convictions.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of more than 100 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, tampering with evidence, criminal trespass, and possession of marijuana. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's constitutional challenge to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5705(e)(2) did not warrant relief; (2) Defendant failed to meet his burden to show clear error in the jury instructions warranting the reversal of his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute; (3) sufficient evidence supported Defendant's methamphetamine conviction, and that conviction was not the product of impermissible stacking; (4) the court should have instructed the jury on simple possession of methamphetamine, but this error did not warrant reversal; and (5) the cumulative effect of the trial errors did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendants' motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210 and his subsequent motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntariness when he entered the plea, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that Defendant did not preserve any issue on appeal as it related to his section 60-1507 motion and that Defendant made new arguments that were inappropriately raised for the first time on appeal. As to the denial of Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(d)(2), the Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw plea. View "Shelton-Jenkins v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court resentencing Defendant for first-degree murder and arson, holding that the journal entry indicating that Defendant would be sentenced to lifetime postrelease supervision was contrary to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3717(u) and that the discrepancy was a simple clerical error that could be addressed by a nunc pro tunc order.After Defendant was convicted, the Supreme Court vacated his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. Following a resentencing hearing the district court sentenced Defendant to twenty-seven months in prison with twelve months of post release supervision for arson and a "hard 25" life sentence for first-degree murder. While the district court orally announced a term of lifetime parole the judge marked the box for "Lifetime Postrelease" supervision on the journal entry of judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded with directions, holding that the journal entry erroneously included lifetime postrelease supervision, requiring a nunc pro tunc order to correct that portion of Defendant's sentence in the journal entry. View "State v. Redick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of felony theft and unlawful acts concerning a computer but remanded the cause for a restitution hearing, holding that the amount of restitution awarded was not supported by substantial evidence.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony theft and unlawful acts concerning a computer and was ordered to serve eighteen months of probation and pay $4,100 in restitution. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court's failure to give a multiple acts instruction for the felony theft charge did not amount to reversible error; and (2) the restitution award in this case was not supported by substantial competent evidence. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Ninh was convicted of rape, indecent liberties with a child, and aggravated criminal sodomy related to allegations that over more than four years he sexually assaulted, raped, and sodomized his victim. The district court imposed 25 life sentences, running consecutive to five concurrent 165-month prison sentences.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting arguments that the Kansas rape and aggravated criminal sodomy statutes were unconstitutional and the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to sustain Ninh’s convictions. Statutory language prohibiting the defendant from using ignorance of whether the victim consented or was overcome by force or fear does not negate any of the prosecution's obligations to prove the essential elements of the crime—which Ninh did not challenge as vague—and thus does not permit arbitrary or unreasonable enforcement. Sufficient evidence existed for a rational fact-finder to find that the victim was overcome by fear while Ninh raped and sodomized her. The prosecutor’s statements concerning “some rapists” were not in error nor did the prosecutor misstate the evidence. The prosecutor's statement that Ninh's "form of force was grooming" was a misstatement of the law and constituted prosecutorial error but was harmless, considering the totality of the evidence. The prosecution did not violate Ninh’s right to a unanimous verdict. View "State v. Ninh" on Justia Law