Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child pursuant to a plea agreement. After sentencing, Defendant filed a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion, contending that her trial counsel was constitutionally defective in negotiating her guilty plea. Defendant also filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. The district court denied both motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although a lack of factual findings hindered the Court's ability to review Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Defendant failed to demonstrate to the Court that even if she had received effective assistance of counsel, she would have declined to plead guilty; and (2) therefore, the district court correctly held that Defendant failed to meet her burden to demonstrate prejudice. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of rape. The district court judge imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) rape is not an alternative means crime, and therefore, the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and Defendant was not denied his right to a unanimous verdict; (2) the district court judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a departure sentence; and (3) because Defendant stated a case-specific argument rather than a categorical argument within the framework of Graham v. Florida in claiming that his sentence was disproportional, Defendant waived his argument by not arguing it in the district court and on appeal. View "State v. Florentin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. Defendant appealed, asserting, among other claims, that the district court erred in admitting in-court identifications from two witnesses because, prior to trial, the witnesses were shown an impermissibly suggestive photo array. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) Defendant failed to provide an adequate record on appeal to support his first claim of error; and (2) Defendant failed properly to preserve or present any constitutional challenges to his sentence. View "State v. Cervantes-Puentes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy of a child under the age of fourteen. The sentencing court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of not less than twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and hard twenty-five life sentence but vacated the sentencing court's journal entry requirement of lifetime postrelease supervision, holding (1) the majority of Defendant's claims on appeal either lacked merit or were not properly preserved for appeal; and (2) the sentencing court erred in entering a journal entry that did not reflect the punishment imposed at the sentencing hearing and instead recording an illegal punishment of lifetime postrelease supervision. Remanded. View "State v. Breeden" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence pursuant to Jessica's Law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred when it allowed the State, through the parties' stipulation, to present evidence establishing that Defendant possessed pornography depicting homosexual acts for the purpose of rebutting Defendant's claim that he was not gay, but the error was harmless; and (2) the district court did not err when it concluded Defendant's sentence was constitutional based on the three factors found in State v. Freeman. View "State v. Boleyn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape and two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The district court, pursuant to Jessica's law, sentenced Defendant to three concurrent hard twenty-five life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to a reversal of his rape conviction based on the State's failure to prove the alternative methods of engaging in sexual intercourse, as the alternative methods are not alternative means, and therefore, this was not an alternative means case triggering jury unanimity concerns; (2) Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his aggravated indecent liberties with a child convictions because his alternative means argument for these convictions was also without merit; and (3) Defendant's sentences did not violate the prohibition against the infliction of cruel or unusual punishment found in the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of indecent liberties with a child. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district judge erred in admitting prior bad acts evidence under the 2008 version of Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455. The court of appeals concluded that Defendant's section 60-455 challenge was not preserved for appeal but proceeded to address it in dicta, concluding that a 2009 amendment to the statute would have vitiated Defendant's challenge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor engaged in a single instance of misconduct, but the error was harmless; (2) the district judge gave an overbroad elements instruction to the jury, but the error in the instruction did not qualify as clearly erroneous or require reversal; (3) the limiting instruction given on the section 60-455 evidence was not clearly erroneous; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Hart" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a retaliatory discharge claim against her former employer (FedEx), alleging that she was terminated for exercising her rights as an injured worker pursuant to the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. Plaintiff filed her suit fifteen months after she was fired. FedEx responded by claiming that, while Kansas law provides a two-year statute of limitations of Plaintiff's claim, Plaintiff was bound by her employment contract to file her suit within six months of her termination. The federal district court granted summary judgment for FedEx. The federal court of appeals certified questions of Kansas law to the Kansas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered by holding that the private contract between FedEx and Plaintiff in this case violated public policy and was invalid to the extent it limited the applicable statute of limitations for filing a retaliatory discharge claim based on Plaintiff's exercise of her rights under the Workers Compensation Act. View "Pfeifer v. Federal Express Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant allowed Kim Driscoll to drive a car belonging to Defendant and others knowing Driscoll was incapable of safely driving the car because he drank alcohol on a daily basis and was a known reckless driver. Driscoll filed a negligent entrustment claim against Defendant and the other owners of the vehicle, claiming they owed him a duty not to give him control of the vehicle. The district court dismissed Driscoll's petition for failure to state a claim on the basis that state law does not recognize a first-party negligent entrustment claim. The district court then certified its decision as a final judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Kansas law recognizes first-party negligent entrustment claims. Remanded. View "Martell v. Driscoll" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. Defendant was subsequently resentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. Within one year of the resentencing hearing but more than one year after the remand, Defendant filed a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court dismissed the motion as untimely. The court of appeals reversed, holding that section 60-1507's time limitation began ten days after resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the facts of this case, the one-year time limitation in which to file a section 60-1507 motion does not begin until the time to appeal from the resentencing expires; and (2) under the circumstances, Defendant's motion was timely. View "Baker v. State" on Justia Law