Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to one count of first-degree murder. Just over one year later, the clerk of the district court received a pro se motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507, in which Defendant alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant filed his supporting memorandum less than one month later. The district court summarily denied the motion, concluding that Defendant had waived his right to file a section 60-1507 motion based on the purported ineffective assistance of counsel and that the motion was time-barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed but on different grounds, concluding that Defendant’s supporting memorandum should be treated as an attempted section 60-1507 amendment and that the amendment was time-barred. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred by concluding that Defendant waived his right to file a section 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the district court erred by concluding that Defendant failed to file his section 60-1507 motion within the one-year time limitation in Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507(f)(1); and (3) the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the district court’s dismissal after treating the supporting memorandum as an untimely amendment. Remanded. View "Wahl v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and arson. The district court imposed a hard fifty life sentence after finding that Defendant committed the murder in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request for a jury instruction on self-defense; (2) any error in denying Defendant’s request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on a theory of imperfect self-defense was harmless; (3) the district court erred in admitting Defendant’s recorded confession when Defendant unambiguously invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, but the error was harmless; and (4) Defendant’s hard fifty sentence was unconstitutional under Alleyne v. United States because the district court denied Defendant the right to have a jury decide beyond a reasonable doubt all of the facts that may increase the penalty for first-degree murder. View "State v. Salary" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony murder and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. During trial, the jury received instructions on second-degree unintentional murder and involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses of felony murder. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor misstated the law - thus, committing misconduct - when he told the jurors during closing arguments that they were to consider Defendant’s guilt for the lesser included crimes only after finding him not guilty of felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s statement was erroneous because it suggested to the jury that it must unanimously acquit him of felony murder before considering his guilt for the lesser included crimes; but (2) because the prosecutor also recited the correct legal standard during closing arguments and the overwhelming evidence established Defendant’s guilt for felony murder, the prosecutor’s erroneous statement did not constitute reversible misconduct. View "State v. Parker" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The district judge imposed a hard forty life sentence. By way of a journal entry five months later, the district judge set amounts for restitution and court costs. The Supreme court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s conviction bestowed jurisdiction to sentence upon the district court, and the district judge’s pronounced sentenced conformed to the statutory requirements; (2) Defendant’s sentence was not illegal because it became final when the district court judge memorialized the amount of restitution in a journal entry; and (3) the district judge’s failure to hold a hearing in open court with Defendant present to set the amount of restitution did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction or make the sentence illegal. View "State v. Moncla" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in this Jessica’s Law case, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Following his direct appeal, Defendant filed a motion to arrest judgment pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3503, arguing that the charging document in his case was fatally defective and deprived the district court of jurisdiction to convict him because it failed to include the essential element that he was eighteen or older at the time of the alleged crimes. The district court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court reinstated the appeal but affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed Defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction; but (2) Defendant may not raise a collateral challenge to the charging document in a section 22-3503 motion filed well after his direct appeal. View "State v. Sellers" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder, vehicle burglary, and theft. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion for change of venue; (2) even if the trial court erred in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of felony murder, Defendant was not entitled to the requested relief of a new trial during which the jury would receive a felony-murder instruction; (3) any error in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of reckless second-degree murder was harmless; (4) the trial court did not err in admitting a before-death photograph of the victim; (5) the trial court did not rule unreasonably in admitting a video of Defendant’s arrest; (6) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing arguments; (7) the trial court did not err in failing to declare a mistrial; and (8) sufficient evidence supported the conviction for capital murder. View "State v. Longoria" on Justia Law

Defendant was visiting the home of a long-time acquaintance when police officers arrived. One of the officers walked to the backyard of the property and found a baggie of methamphetamine on the ground. Defendant was arrested and transported to jail, where officials discovered a baggie of marijuana during an inventory search of Defendant's belongings. Defendant was charged with several drug-related crimes. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that the methamphetamine was found in the curtilage of the home, that a social guest such as Defendant has standing to assert a host’s Fourth Amendment rights in the curtilage, and that marijuana found on Defendant was fruit of the poisonous tree. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court, holding (1) the Court of Appeals erred in reversing because the district court’s findings that the backyard was curtilage were supported by substantial competent evidence, and case law supported its legal conclusion that the area was curtilage; (2) a social guest has standing to challenge a search of the curtilage of the host’s residence; and (3) the marijuana should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. View "State v. Talkington" on Justia Law

In this original disciplinary proceeding against district judge Timothy H. Henderson (Respondent), the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed a formal complaint against Respondent, alleging three counts of judicial misconduct constituting various violations of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent denied that he violated the Code. After a public hearing, the hearing panel found Code violations under all three counts and recommended that Respondent be disciplined by public censure. The Supreme Court concluded that Respondent violated the Code and ordered that Respondent be suspended from his judicial duties for ninety days without pay and that he complete a course in sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation prevention training. View "In re Henderson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated arson, premeditated first-degree murder, and capital murder. The convictions stemmed from Defendant’s act of setting fire to a residence, which killed two people. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive hard forty life sentences for the murders. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the convictions were multiplicitous. The district court summarily dismissed the claim, concluding that the capital murder conviction would render moot any resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding (1) Defendant’s multiplicity argument failed because multiplicity cannot be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence; and (2) Defendant’s contention that his sentence was unconstitutional similarly failed. View "State v. Noyce" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and two counts of aggravated battery. Defendant was sentenced to a hard twenty-five life sentence for the murder and an addition 301 months for the remaining crimes, to run consecutive to his life sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge abused his discretion in ordering his sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering Defendant’s sentences to run consecutively. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law