Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the district court denying Defendant's pro se motion to vacate an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, holding that Defendant chose the incorrect procedural vehicle to correct "what he labels an illegal sentence stemming from an allegedly defective criminal complaint."Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted unintentional second-degree murder and was sentenced to forty-one months in prison. Defendant later brought this motion to correct his sentence, arguing that because caselaw had characterized attempted unintentional second-degree murder as "logically impossible" to commit, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose the sentence. The lower courts denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence fell into the collateral attack category recognized as inappropriate for this statutory procedure. View "State v. Deck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, one count of first-degree felony murder, and other crimes, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err by failing to give Defendant's request to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction as a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder; (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of crime scene and autopsy photographs; and (3) the trial judge did not err in declining to give the jury an instruction on compulsion. View "State v. Lowry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to aggravated robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, burglary, and arson, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas.In his withdrawal motion, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to withdraw his pleas because trial counsel was incompetent in refusing to provide him with all available discovery and because the State coerced him into entering a plea agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant failed to establish good cause to withdraw his pleas. View "State v. Bilbrey " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals panel reversing the judgment of the district court against Key Insurance Company in this garnishment action brought by Nancy Granados seeking pay under the liability insurance policy Key had issued to John Wilson, holding the court of appeals made the correct conclusion.John Wilson struck a car while he was driving under the influence and killed the driver. The driver's wife, Granados, brought a wrongful death lawsuit against Wilson. The district court entered a judgment against Wilson for nearly $3.5 million. Granados then filed this garnishment action seeking payment from Key under the automobile liability insurance policy it had issued to Wilson and under which Key limited tis coverage for bodily injuries caused by Wilson to $50,000 in the aggregate. Granados argued that, despite the policy limits, Key's negligent and bad-faith handling of Wilson's claim rendered it liable for the entire judgment. The trial court agreed and entered judgment against Key. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Granados failed to meet her burden to prove that Key's handling of the claim caused the judgment exceeding policy limits. View "Granados v. Wilson " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing all but one of Defendant's felony possession convictions and all but one of his misdemeanor possession convictions, holding that the court of appeals did not err when it found Defendant's possession of drug paraphernalia convictions were multiplicitous.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of eight counts of felony possession of drug paraphernalia under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5709(b)(1) and seventeen counts of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia under subsection 21-5709(b)(2). On appeal, Defendant argued that his convictions were multiplicitous because they relied on multiple items of paraphernalia used for the same purpose as part of a unitary course of conduct. The court of appeals agreed and reversed seven of the felony possession convictions and sixteen of the misdemeanor possession convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the legislature intended the term "drug paraphernalia," as used in Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5709(b), to be tied to a single unit of prosecution. View "State v. Eckert " on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court held that when a person requests an electronic copy of a public electronic record under the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) a public agency must provide that copy in electronic format.Plaintiff filed a petition to enforce her rights under KORA after Defendant - a hospital - refused to produce for Plaintiff requested electronic records in "electronic" format rather than "paper" format. The district court ordered Defendant to provide Plaintiff with electronic copies of the records. The court of appeals reversed, holding that KORA gives an agency discretion over how it provides records. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals missed the critical implication that any "accurate reproduction" of a public record must mirror the content of that record, unless specifically exempted; and (2) the only accurate reproduction of an electronic file is a copy of the electronic file. View "Roe v. Phillips County Hospital" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction for felony fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, holding that the court of appeals misapplied the standard required to determine when an instructional error necessitates reversal and that that the district court's failure to give a lesser included offense instruction for the misdemeanor offense was not clearly erroneous.The court of appeals found that the district court erred by failing to give an unrequested jury instruction on a lesser included misdemeanor offense and that reversal was required because the jury could have reasonably reached a different verdict on the felony charge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred by using a lower standard of doubt about the outcome to declare the unpreserved error reversible; and (2) the unpreserved error in the jury instructions was not clearly erroneous. View "State v. Berkstresser " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for the first-degree premediated murder of her estranged husband, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal on her claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate Defendant's right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment by placing limits on cross-examination; (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence because the State presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of first-degree premeditated murder against Defendant; and (3) sufficient evidence supported Defendant's conviction for first-degree premeditated murder. View "State v. Frantz " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's most recent request for postconviction discovery of the ballistics report from her case, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated robbery in a shooting death. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole for forty years. Defendant later filed her motion requesting postconviction discovery. The district court denied the motion after applying the postconviction discovery test articulated by a panel of the court of appeals in State v. Mundo-Parra, 462 P.3d 1211 (Kan. 2020). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's claims of error on appeal lacked merit. View "State v. Richardson " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's "Motion to Set Aside and Correction of Illegal Sentence," holding that Kansas courts had jurisdiction to try and sentence Defendant.In 1998, Defendant was convicted of capital murder and other charges. The court sentenced Defendant to a hard forty life term and consecutive terms for the remaining offenses. In 2021, Defendant filed the motion at issue in this case, arguing that he was a "natural living soul, Indigenous Native Moorish-American National" and was therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the state or federal government. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, because Defendant committed his crime in Kansas, Kansas courts had jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence him. View "State v. Verge" on Justia Law