Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's successive motion to correct an illegal sentence in this second appeal regarding the matter, holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred Appellant's successive claim.In 1995, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a hard forty sentence. The trial court also imposed restitution and fees. In 2013, Appellant brought a motion to correct an illegal sentence challenging the district court's procedure for ordering restitution. After the district court summarily denied the motion the Supreme Court affirmed. In 2019, Appellant brought the illegal sentence motion at issue in this appeal arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose restitution. The district court summarily denied the claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that res judicata applied, thus barring relief on Defendant's illegal-sentence motion. View "State v. Moncla" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals panel upholding a restitution plan imposed by the district court in connection with Appellant's plea of guilty to aggravated robbery of a vehicle, holding that Appellant did not meet his burden to prove that the restitution plan in his case was unworkable.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant plead guilty to aggravated burglary of a vehicle. The district court imposed a 100-month prison sentence and ordered $1,954 in restitution payable to the victim. Under the court's restitution plan, the amount was payable in monthly installments of $15. On appeal, Appellant argued that the $15 monthly payment was unworkable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant presented to evidence showing that he would be unable to make his $15 monthly payments while incarcerated Appellant did not meet his burden to prove the restitution plan to be unworkable. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this case involving permits issued in 2017 and 2018 by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to four different swine confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), holding that current circumstances rendered moot the legal challenges brought by Sierra Club.In 2017, Husky Hogs LLC formulated a plan to rebuild and expand its CAFO. As part of the plan, the rebuild planners formed Prairie Dog Pork, LLC, which was granted a portion of Husky Hogs' property. Thereafter, KDHE granted each LLC a permit. Subsequently, the same group of landowners created two additional LLCs to further their growing capacities and were given permits from KDHE. Sierra Club brought this lawsuit alleging that the permits issued to the four CAFOs violated the surface water setback requirements of Kan. Stat. Ann. 65-1,180. The district court held that the permits were unlawful. The CAFOs appealed, and while the appeal was pending KDHE issued four new permits to the CAFOs reflecting new legal descriptions of the four facilities. The court of appeals remanded the case with directions to reinstate the 2017 and 2018 permits, which were no longer operational. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, holding that there was no longer any actual controversy concerning the 2017 and 2018 permits. View "Sierra Club v. Stanek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of a panel of the court of appeals denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence and remanded that claim to the district court to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction, holding that the court of appeals panel erred in holding that an illegal sentence motion cannot be filed in an appellate court.Defendant was found guilty of aggravated robbery, among other charges, and sentenced to seventy-one months in prison. Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the court of appeals. The court of appeals panel denied relief. The Supreme Court reversed the panel's denial of Defendant's illegal sentence claim, holding (1) Kansas law permits a defendant to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence in an appellate court on direct appeal, and the question of remand is governed by Kan. Stat. Ann. 2022 Supp. 21-6814(d); and (2) the 2002 amendment to section 21-6814 applied, but under the circumstances of this case, the contested legal and factual issues should be first resolved in the district court. View "State v. Steinert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's wrongful conviction action brought under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-5004 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court incorrectly dismissed his suit because, among other things, factual questions remained over the application of Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-515(a) and the doctrine of equitable tolling. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to show that the district court erred by declining to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling to his claim; and (2) the district court correctly dismissed Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Bell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this criminal case for resentencing, holding that the district court erred in scoring Appellant's out-of-state burglary convictions as person felonies in imposing the underlying sentence.In 2019, Appellant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine. The district court granted a dispositional departure to probation for eighteen months with an underlying forty-month prison sentence. The district court subsequently revoked probation. The sentence was based on a presentence investigation report (PSI) that documented several adult person felonies arising from New Jersey convictions. On appeal, Appellant argued that his sentence was illegal because the the State failed to prove his prior New Jersey convictions were person felonies. The court of appeal rejected the argument. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred when it scored Appellant's burglary convictions as person felonies; and (2) correctly scored Appellant's criminal trespass conviction as a person felony. View "State v. Busch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, selling sexual relations, and two counts of felony theft, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in determining that her incriminating statements made to law enforcement confessing to the murder were made voluntarily. Among other things, Defendant contended that sleep deprivation and drug use tainted her interview and that her confinement in the interview room was coercive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly held that Defendant's statements were freely, voluntarily, and knowingly given and admissible at trial; and (2) ample evidence supported the jury's finding of premeditation. View "State v. Spencer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that there was no error.Defendant was convicted of rape and aggravated incest for sexual encounters with his then-minor stepdaughter between 2005 and 2009. Defendant was sentenced in 2011 to a term of 400 months' imprisonment. Defendant's criminal history score was based in part on a 1992 Illinois armed robbery conviction designated as a person felony. Relying on the Supreme Court's 2014 decision that all out-of-state convictions before 1993 must be classified as nonperson offenses Defendant filed his motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing that his 1992 Illinois conviction should have been classified as a nonperson felony. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that subsequent statutory amendments in response to the Court's decision operated retroactively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's criminal history score was correctly calculated, and Defendant's sentence was not illegal under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence for aggravated kidnapping, holding that the district court judge did not err in applying the statutory departure factor set forth in Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6815(c)(2)(F)(i).Defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of rape, and one count of aggravated sodomy. The district court doubled the presumptive sentence for aggravated kidnapping after finding two aggravating factors. Defendant appealed, arguing that neither aggravating factor applied. The Supreme Court rejected Defendant's arguments, holding that the district court did not err in applying the statutory departure factor in section 21-6815(c)(2)(F)(i). View "State v. Newman-Caddell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of possessing firearms by a felon and one count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute but reversed his conviction of one count of driving with a suspended license, holding that the evidence did not support the suspended license conviction.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant's statements during an interrogation were voluntary and admissible at trial; (2) the district court's failure to obtain a jury trial waiver before an elemental stipulation was not structural, and the error did not affect the trial's outcome; (3) the lower courts did not err in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective in pursuing a guilt-based defense; (4) there was no clear error in the jury instructions; and (5) the State failed to present evidence of a necessary element of the crime of driving while Defendant's license was suspended. View "State v. Bentley" on Justia Law