Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While in the passenger seat of a car registered to the car's driver, Brian Gilbert was approached by a police officer. After learning that Gilbert had an outstanding warrant for his arrest, the officer arrested Gilbert and searched the car, where he discovered drug paraphernalia and drugs. Gilbert was charged with possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before trial, Gilbert filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing that the officer was not authorized to search the vehicle. The district court denied Gilbert's motion to suppress because the statute upon which Gilbert based his argument had been amended at the time of the search. The court then convicted Gilbert as charged. The court of appeals reversed Gilbert's convictions, holding (1) Gilbert had standing to contest the search, and (2) the amended version of the statute was unconstitutional. On review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that Gilbert lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search under Rakas v. Illinois, which states that a person aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through introduction of evidence obtained by search of a third-person's premises has not had his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. View "State v. Gilbert" on Justia Law

Randy Chavez pled guilty to one off-grid count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, under Jessica's Law, and one on-grid count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Chavez was sentenced to a twenty-five year term with lifetime parole and lifetime electronic monitoring. Chavez appealed, contending, inter alia, that the district court erred in sentencing him to a twenty-five-year term under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4643(a)(1) instead of a twenty-year term under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3717(b)(2). The Supreme Court found that the two statutes conflicted, and pursuant to the rule that states when the provisions of two statutes are in conflict the more specific statute governs, concluded that defendants who are subject to Jessica's Law face a mandatory minimum term of not less than twenty-five years' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole. The Court, however, held that the imposition of parole conditions, including lifetime monitoring, is the province of the parole board and lies outside the jurisdiction of the district court. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment without parole eligibility and vacated the parole condition of lifetime electronic monitoring. View "State v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Andre Bailey was convicted of, inter alia, first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. Because Bailey was seventeen years old at the time he was charged with the crimes, charges were originally filed with the juvenile court. The State filed a motion pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2347 to have the case transferred to adult court for prosecution. The trial court granted the motion and tried Bailey as an adult. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the stipulated facts provided substantial evidence to support the trial court's decision to certify Bailey as an adult for prosecution. The Court also concluded that the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury, and it was not improper for the trial court to inform two witnesses that they did not have Fifth Amendment privileges. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

James Simmons was convicted of rape and misdemeanor theft following a jury trial. Simmons appealed several issues, including claims of prosecutorial misconduct during trial. The court of appeals affirmed Simmons' convictions. The Supreme Court granted review on the prosecutorial misconduct claims only. After conducting a two-step analysis, the Court reversed the convictions, holding (1) the prosecutor's discussion of the Stockholm Syndrome during voir dire constituted misconduct because the prosecutor referred to facts not in evidence; (2) the prosecutor's comment about the victim's behavior in the future during closing arguments constituted misconduct because it was an improper appeal for sympathy; and (3) the two episodes of misconduct combined to constitute misconduct of sufficient magnitude to require reversal and a new trial. Remanded. View "State v. Simmons" on Justia Law

After being convicted of kidnapping, burglary, rape, and criminal sodomy, defendant Jack Goldsmith filed a request for postconviction DNA testing. The district court ordered the testing pursuant to an agreement of the parties to test thirty-five items. The state conducted testing on only one of the items, a pair of blue sweatpants. The result of the testing was unfavorable to Goldsmith. Without granting a hearing, on unilateral request of the state, the district court dismissed the motion. Goldsmith appealed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals and reversed the decision of the district court, holding that when a district court has issued an order for postconviction forensic DNA testing of multiple items of evidence, the state may not unilaterally discontinue testing after obtaining a single result unfavorable to the defense, nor may the district court automatically dismiss the petition. Remanded. View "Goldsmith v. State" on Justia Law

While defendant Carlos Montes-Mata was held in county jail on drug-related charges, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him for violation of his right to a speedy trial. The district court granted the motion, dismissing the pending charges because defendant had been held approximately 111 days when his motion was heard, exceeding the 90-day statutory speedy trial limit. The court of appeals affirmed. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed. At issue was whether an I-247 form the county sheriff received from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that informed the sheriff about the possibility of ICE formal proceedings against defendant tolled the 90-day requirement in Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3402(1). The Supreme Court concluded that the district judge properly discharged defendant from further liability for trial on the crimes charges, holding that the I-247 form did not constitute a present custodial claim on defendant and therefore did not affect the speedy trial question under the statute. View "State v. Montes-Mata" on Justia Law

Appellant Raymore Levy was convicted for rape of a child under fourteen years of age, aggravated criminal sodomy of a child under fourteen years of age, and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Levy received three life imprisonment sentences, the third sentence running concurrent with the first two. On appeal, Levy argued (1) his sentence was disproportionate in violation of his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, (2) his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated after a video interview was shown at his preliminary hearing when the child victim was not there to be cross-examined, and (3) both his trial counsel were ineffective, depriving him of a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding appellant's first two arguments were not properly preserved for appeal and declining to decide the third issue because it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "State v. Levy" on Justia Law

Defendant Kevin Gatlin was convicted by a jury of intentional aggravated battery causing disfigurement after biting off the tip of another man's thumb in a bar fight. On appeal to the court of appeals, the panel ruled that Gatlin failed to preserve the issue of failure to instruct on recklessness-based lesser included offenses. Gatlin appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to give two specific lesser included offense instructions, one for reckless aggravated battery that did cause disfigurement or great bodily harm and one for reckless aggravated battery that could have caused disfigurement or great bodily harm. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, reversed Gatlin's conviction, and remanded, holding (1) that the issue was properly preserved for appeal, and therefore, the appellate court applied an incorrect standard of review, and (2) that the district court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct on the definition of recklessness and the recklessness-based lesser included offenses sought by Gatlin and his counsel. View "State v. Gatlin" on Justia Law

Louie Martin, a convicted felon, was released on postrelease supervision after incarceration. Shortly after his release, the legislature passed an amendment that impacted Martin's previously imposed postrelease expiration date by extending it nearly eleven years. Martin filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against the parole board, claiming that the change in his postincarceration supervision discharge date is an unlawful ex post facto law. The district court dissolved Martin's writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) because the period of parole or postrelease supervision is part of the sentence imposed, a change to that period is a change in punishment for ex post facto considerations; (2) because the amendment is retrospective and changes the term of postrelease supervision, the law violates ex post facto protections if it acts to Martin's detriment; and (3) Martin was clearly disadvantaged by the amendment. Therefore, the amendment is an impermissible ex post facto law as applied to Martin. View "Martin v. Kansas Parole Bd." on Justia Law

In 1999, Melvin Holmes was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded because of prosecutorial misconduct at trial. In 2002, a second jury convicted Holmes of the same offenses, and in 2004 the Court affirmed the convictions. In 2007, Holmes filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel during his 2004 appeal. Specifically, Holmes contended appellate counsel failed to (1) raise the issue of ineffective trial counsel, (2) include a videotape and accompanying transcript used by the jury in the appellate record, and (3) file a reply brief or motion for reconsideration. The district court's denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Holmes appealed. After dismissing Holmes' first and third arguments, The Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the videotape and transcript issue. The Court directed the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing to inquire about appellate counsel's strategy in not providing the items in the record on appeal, and if the court found appellate counsel's performance was deficient, to inquire whether Holmes was prejudiced to the extent that, but for counsel's failure, Holmes' appeal would have been successful. View "Holmes v. State" on Justia Law