Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, the alternative charge of second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. Defendant raised several issues on appeal, including an allegation that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the withdrawal of his pro se in pro se motion for new counsel without making a sufficient inquiry into the circumstances prompting the motion. The Supreme Court remanded on this issue, holding that the district court erred in not inquiring before allowing the apparently nonconsensual withdrawal of Defendant’s pro se motion for new counsel. The Court also remanded for a nunc pro tunc order correcting the severity level of Defendant’s second-degree murder conviction. The Court rejected Defendant’s remaining claims of error. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery for crimes committed when Defendant was thirteen years old. Defendant was tried as an adult. The district court sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty life sentence for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in waiving juvenile jurisdiction and in authorizing the State to prosecute Defendant as an adult; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury that a killing in the flight from an attempt to commit an inherently dangerous felony constitutes felony murder; (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s aggravated attempted robbery conviction; (4) the prosecutor made improper statements during closing argument, but there was no reasonable possibility the prosecutor’s improper commentary affected the trial’s outcome; and (5) Defendant’s argument that her mandatory life-with-parole sentence was unconstitutional was without merit. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with abuse of a child and felony murder with the underlying felony of child abuse arising from the death of an eleven-month-old child who was in Defendant’s care. The first jury trial resulted in a conviction on the child abuse charge. Because the first jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the felony-murder charge, a second trial was held, after which Defendant was convicted of felony murder. Defendant appealed, raising several issues relating to both trials. The Supreme Court affirmed the felony-murder conviction but reversed the abuse of a child conviction, holding that because Defendant did not present a unified defense to the child abuse charge, the district court’s failure to give a unanimity instruction despite evidence of multiple acts was clearly erroneous. Remanded. View "State v. De La Torre" on Justia Law

In 1995, Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder and aggravated robbery for crimes Appellant committed when he was fourteen years old. Approximately twelve years later, Appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Appellant also argued that his aggravated robbery sentence was illegal because his juvenile adjudications were used both to certify him for adult prosecution and to compute his criminal history score. The district court denied Appellant’s motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate the manifest injustice required by Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(d) to withdraw his guilty pleas; and (2) Appellant’s aggravated robbery sentence, which was within the presumptive sentence for that crime based on Appellant’s criminal history score, was not illegal.View "State v. Kelly" on Justia Law

After a second trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for findings and conclusions relating to the issue of reopening the defense case based on evidence that emerged after the jury began its deliberations. On remand, the district court concluded that it would be inappropriate to reopen the case to allow Defendant to bring in the evidence because, among other things, the late introduction of the evidence would be prejudicial to the State where the State would have to overcome the likely undue importance attached to the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court performed the duty that the Court instructed it to carry out on remand and did not abuse its discretion in its conclusions regarding the issue of reopening the case. View "State v. Horton" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of stalking and violating a protective order for placing telephone calls from the State prison to his former wife, D.K. D.K. knew, based on her phone’s caller ID, that Defendant was calling her from prison, but D.K. and Defendant never spoke over the telephone. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s conviction for stalking, concluding that insufficient evidence showed that Defendant had committed an “act of communication” as proscribed by the stalking statute, and remanded with instructions that Defendant be convicted of attempted stalking. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) Defendant committed an act of communication towards D.K. sufficient to find him guilty of stalking; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in affirming Defendant’s conviction for violating a protective order. View "State v. Kendall" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under the age of fourteen and was sentenced to concurrent life sentences without the possibility of parole for forty years. Defendant appealed, raising five issues relating to alleged trial errors and one issue relating to sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant failed to preserve several of his arguments by not making a timely objection to evidence or not creating a sufficient record for appeal; and (2) Defendant’s remaining arguments lacked merit. View "State v. Reed" on Justia Law

A.M.M.-H. was sentenced in an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding in which he was given both a juvenile sentence and an adult sentence. The adult sentence was stayed pending successful completion of his juvenile sentence. After A.M.M.-H. violated the terms of conditional release on his juvenile sentence the district judge revoked conditional release and ordered A.M.M.-H. to serve his adult prison sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in this case, the district judge had discretion to determine whether A.M.M.-H.’s violation of the terms of conditional release warranted revocation of the stay of the adult sentence; and (2) because the record was unclear as to whether the district judge knew he had discretion not to execute the adult sentence upon a finding of violation of the terms of A.M.M.-H.’s conditional release, the case must be remanded for reconsideration of the State’s motion to revoke. View "In re A.M.M.-H." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a habeas corpus action alleging, inter alia, that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to challenge an incorrect written jury instruction that diluted the State’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s conviction and remanded his case for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the incorrect instruction was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to a new trial.View "Miller v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder and filed a direct appeal before passing away. At issue was whether defendant's death made the appeal moot. In Kansas, the death of a criminal defendant does not automatically abate a defendant's appeal. The court held, however, that this nonabatement rule does not require the court to consider all issues in an appeal. Rather, an appellate court should consider whether an issue: (1) is of statewide interest and of the nature that public policy demands a decision, such as those issues that would exonerate the defendant; (2) remains a real controversy; or (3) is capable of repetition. In this case, the only issue that meets this criteria is an issue that might clear defendant's name, specifically his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The court found no merit to that issue and affirmed the conviction. Because the remaining issues are moot, the court dismissed the remainder of the appeal. View "State v. Hollister" on Justia Law