Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed from the district court's denial of his pre-sentence motion to withdraw an Alford plea to one count of sexual battery. By entering an Alford plea, Defendant pleaded guilty without admitting he committed the crime. Defendant claimed on appeal that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea because the trial court erred by accepting his plea without establishing a factual basis for it, and he felt pressured to enter the plea because his attorney had not subpoenaed any trial witnesses. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court to permit Defendant to withdraw his plea because the district court erred by not establishing the factual basis for the plea as required by Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(a)(4). View "State v. Ebaben" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of hydrocodone under Kan. Stat. Ann. 65-4160(a), a severity level 4 drug felony. Defendant argued that eight Lortab pills in his possession were schedule III rather than schedule II drugs and that section 65-4160(a) was therefore inapplicable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the formulation of the Lortab in Defendant's possession in this case qualified it as a schedule III rather than a schedule II drug; but (2) as section 65-4160(a)'s prohibition is not limited to drugs on one or the other of these schedules, the district court did not err in finding that possession of Lortab was a proscribed felony under section 65-4160(a). View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the imposition of three life sentences with a mandatory minimum term of twenty-five years following his plea of guilty to three counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Defendant contended that the sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's imposition of Defendant's sentences, holding (1) Defendant's sentences did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment; and (2) the district court did not commit reversible error when it denied Defendant's motion for departure from the hard twenty-five life sentence applicable under Jessica's Law. View "State v. Woodard" on Justia Law

Defendant in this case was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy with a child less than fourteen years of age. The district court denied Defendant's motion to depart from the hard twenty-five life sentence provided for in Jessica's Law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion because reasonable people would agree with the district court's determination that the mitigating factors presented by Defendant were not substantial and compelling in light of the circumstances of the case, which included the fact that the victim of a six-year-old autistic child who had been in Defendant's care at the time of the crime, expert testimony supported the conclusion that Defendant was likely to reoffend, and there was evidence of factors that supported the conclusion that Defendant was not amenable to rehabilitation. View "State v. Salinas" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of off-grid aggravated indecent liberties with a child pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State agreed to dismiss a third count and stand silent at sentencing. Defendant asked that the Jessica's Law life sentences with twenty-five-year mandatory minimums run concurrently, but the district court judge imposed two consecutive life sentences with no possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to consider whether the district court abused its discretion in running these off-grid life sentences consecutively; and (2) under the facts of this case, it was not an abuse of discretion to impose the life sentences consecutively. View "State v. Frecks" on Justia Law

Phillip Baptist pleaded no contest to the off-grid crime of rape of a child under the age of fourteen. The district court imposed a hard twenty-five life sentence under Jessica's Law, meaning Baptist would only be eligible for parole after serving twenty-five years in prison, and also imposed lifetime postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the sentence, holding (1) the statutory provision providing for a hard twenty-five life sentence is the only provision that applies when a defendant is sentenced under Jessica's law, and therefore, the district court did not err in sentencing Baptist to a hard twenty-five life sentence; (2) a defendant sentenced under Jessica's Law is subject to lifetime parole rather than lifetime postrelease supervision, and therefore, the district court erred in sentencing Baptist to lifetime postrelease supervision; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baptist's motion to depart from the sentence provided for in Jessica's Law because reasonable people could have agreed that the aggravating circumstances of the crime outweighed the mitigating factor. Remanded. View "State v. Baptist" on Justia Law

Marvin Hansford was named and served as a defendant in a real property partition action. Although he did not respond to the partition petition and failed to claim that he was the sole owner of any of the legally described property, he later sought to establish a claim to a portion of the partitioned land against its purchaser. The district court granted the purchaser's motion for summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lower courts did not err in granting summary judgment to the purchaser, holding that the failure of a party to take a direct appeal challenging the description of the property in a partition action precludes that party from making a collateral attack on the partition orders. View "Hansford v. Silver Lake Heights, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape of a child less than fourteen years old and one count of aggravated criminal sodomy of a child less than fourteen years old. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 592 months based on his criminal history score. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for departure from the mandatory sentencing provisions provided in Jessica's Law. Because the journal entry erroneously included lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime electronic monitoring, the case was remanded with directions to correct that portion of the sentence. View "State v. Mason" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to an amended charge of kidnapping with the intent to facilitate flight and was sentenced to a term of five years in prison. Defendant signed a petition to enter a plea of guilty in which he verified that he entered the plea knowingly and understandingly and without threats or promises. Defendant later moved to withdraw his guilty plea and also filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court denied both motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly denied Defendant's motions, as (1) the State did not violate the plea agreement or fail to disclose exculpatory documents prior to the entry of Defendant's plea, and Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel prior to the entry of Defendant's plea; and (2) Defendant's challenge to the legality of his sentence was fatally flawed. View "State v. Szczygiel" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and an unlawful weapons violation. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences and a concurrent three- to ten-year sentence on the weapons conviction. Defendant appealed the district court's summary denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. Defendant's motion alleged the district court imposed cumulative punishments for the felony murder and aggravated kidnapping convictions because both arose from the same act of violence. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary denial of his motion because Defendant unsuccessfully argued the identical issue previously, and therefore, Defendant's claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law