Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Luiz Mendoza pleaded no contest to rape with a victim who was eleven years old. As part of the plea agreement, the State dismissed all other charges and agreed to recommend a downward departure to the sentencing grid. Mendoza filed a motion for a downward sentencing departure based on his lack of criminal history. The district court denied the departure motion and sentenced Mendoza to life in prison without parole for twenty-five years. The court also imposed lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime electronic monitoring because Mendoza was convicted of a child sex offense. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Mendoza's life sentence without parole eligibility, (2) vacated the parole condition of lifetime electronic monitoring because the imposition of parole conditions is the province of the parole board and lies outside the jurisdiction of the district court, and (3) affirmed the district court's denial of the downward departure motion. View "State v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

Shane Marquis was placed on probation after being convicted of drug charges and felony theft. Later, the State sought to revoke Marquis' probation, claiming he failed to successfully complete a required boot camp. At the revocation hearing, the community corrections officer assigned to Marquis' case did not testify, but, instead, the State presented the officer's affidavit. The district court determined that Marquis violated the conditions of his probation and revoked the probation. Marquis appealed, contending that the district court violated his right of confrontation by considering his supervising officer's affidavit without complying with the requirements for the admission of testimonial hearsay set forth in Crawford v. Washington. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that although the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is inapplicable in a probation revocation proceeding, the Fourteenth Amendment affords a probation minimum due process rights as a prerequisite to the revocation of probation. Remanded for the district court to inquire as to whether the State's failure to produce the supervising officer as a witness violated Marquis' due process rights. View "State v. Marquis" on Justia Law

Will Wimbley was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. Wimbley filed two motions for postconviction relief. At issue in the motions were (1) the prosecutor's closing statement that "premeditation can occur in an instant," and (2) questions surrounding DNA evidence on the murder weapon. Wimbley's first motion was denied by the district court. The court of appeals affirmed. In his second motion for postconviction relief, Wimbley argued that a recent Supreme Court decision, State v. Holmes, represented an intervening change in the law. The district court summarily denied the motion, finding the motion was successive and untimely. The court of appeals held that Holmes represented a clear change in the law, and therefore, reversed Wimbley's underlying convictions and remanded for a new trial. On review, the Supreme Court found the district court's rulings to be appropriate and reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) Holmes did not change the legal definition of premeditation but rather looked at the prejudicial impact of a prosecutor's misstatement that premeditation can occur in an instant, and (2) the district court was justified in declining Wimbley's request for retesting of the murder weapon. View "Wimbley v. State" on Justia Law

At issue here was a reserved question in Koplin v. Rosel Well Perforators of whether Kansas would recognize the tort of intentional interference with a prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence if a defendant or potential defendant in an underlying case destroyed evidence to their own advantage. Plaintiff Superior Boiler Works brought suit against Defendants, a company and two individuals, for intentional and negligent interference with actual and prospective actions by destruction of evidence. Defendants had destroyed company records after Superior sought information for use in asbestos-related litigation regarding asbestos content in materials Superior supplied to Defendants. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, finding (1) Defendants had no duty to preserve the records, and (2) the reserved question in Koplin did not apply to spoliation claims between those who are potential codefendants in the underlying action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) simply being in the chain of distribution of a product or in the stream of commerce, without more, is not a special relationship that gives rise to a duty to preserve evidence, and (2) an independent tort of spoliation will not be recognized in Kansas for claims by a defendant against codefendants or potential codefendants. View "Superior Boiler Works, Inc. v. Kimball" on Justia Law

Daniel Perez was charged with first-degree felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling, and conspiracy to commit criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling. After the state moved to try Perez as an adult, the district court authorized adult prosecution. Perez was convicted of all charges. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Perez's argument that he was entitled to have a jury make the determination whether he should be tried as an adult was not properly before the appellate court for review because it was asserted for the first time on appeal; (2) the district court's Allen-type instruction to the jury before deliberations began was not clearly erroneous; and (3) the district court did not err by failing to instruct the jury at trial on second-degree reckless murder as a lesser included offense of felony murder. View "State v. Perez" on Justia Law

William McKnight pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and was sentenced to thirty months' incarceration with twenty-four months' postrelease supervision. Because his crime fell in a border box on the drug grid, the trial court suspended the sentence and put McKnight on an eighteen-month probation. When McKnight violated the terms of his probation, the court revoked McKnight's probation and imposed a modified sentence of twenty-two months' incarceration with no period of postrelease supervision. Later, the State made a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court imposed the modified twenty-two months' incarceration with twenty-four months' postrelease supervision. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and the district court, vacating the sentence imposing postrelease supervision. The Court then affirmed the sentence originally imposed of twenty-two months' incarceration with no postrelease supervision, holding (1) once a legal sentence is pronounced from the bench, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify the sentence; and (2) the trial court in this case imposed a legal sentence, and therefore, it did not have jurisdiction to later modify that sentence. View "State v. McKnight" on Justia Law

Charles Jones was sixteen years old when he was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated burglary. The district court certified Jones to stand trial as an adult on the charge of first-degree murder, and Jones was later convicted of the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed Jones' conviction and sentence. Jones subsequently filed a motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his juvenile waiver hearing pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507, which was denied by the district court. The court of appeals determined that counsel's performance at the waiver hearing was deficient but that Jones was not prejudiced by counsel's performance. Three months later, Jones filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, arguing that the juvenile waiver proceedings were defective for several reasons. The district court summarily denied Jones' motion after finding the sufficiency of the juvenile waiver proceeding was raised on appeal and in his earlier Section 60-1507 action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the motion without a hearing because the motion conclusively showed that Jones did not establish a basis for determining his sentence was illegal. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Sterling Hall was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. Hall appealed, contending, inter alia, that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by misstating the evidence and the law regarding the element of premeditation, by injecting his personal belief into closing argument, and by inflaming the passions of the jury by appealing to the jurors' sense of responsibility. The Supreme Court affirmed Hall's convictions and sentences, holding (1) although the prosecutor misstated the law as it related to the facts of this case regarding Hall's ability to premeditate the killing, the error did not prejudice Hall's right to a fair trial under the circumstances presented; (2) the district court did not clearly err in failing to give the instruction for second-degree murder as a lesser included offense; (3) the evidence of premeditation was sufficient to support Hall's first-degree murder conviction; and (4) there were no cumulative trial or sentencing errors. View "State v. Hall" on Justia Law

Christopher Hall was charged with aggravated battery, attempted murder in the first-degree, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, murder in the first-degree, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and criminal desecration of a body. The district court initially determined that Hall was incompetent to stand trial, but after a doctor wrote a report determining that Hall was competent, the district judge found Hall competent to stand trial. Hall then pleaded guilty on all counts charged. The district court found Hall competent to enter his plea and found him guilty on all counts. Hall appealed, arguing that the district court judge erred by accepting his guilty plea and by failing to inform him of the maximum penalty that could be imposed for first-degree murder. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed Hall's appeal of his conviction for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Hall surrendered any right he had to appeal his conviction without first attempting to withdraw his plea in the district court; and (2) the district court did not err by finding Hall competent to be sentenced on the first-degree murder charge. View "State v. Hall" on Justia Law

Defendant Ho Duong was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The district court judge sentenced Duong to sixty-one months in prison and lifetime postrelease supervision with lifetime electronic monitoring. The Supreme Court affirmed Duong's conviction and vacated the electronic monitoring portion of his sentence, holding (1) the prosecutor's comments in closing argument did not deny Duong a fair trial; (2) the district judge's omission of a cautionary eyewitness identification instruction was not clearly erroneous; (3) Duong's objection to the district judge's Allen-type instruction was not specific, and the district court judge did not clearly err in giving the instruction; and (4) the journal entry of judgment ordering lifetime electronic monitoring was in error because the district judge lacked power to impose parole conditions. View "State v. Duong" on Justia Law