Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court resentencing Defendant for first-degree murder and arson, holding that the journal entry indicating that Defendant would be sentenced to lifetime postrelease supervision was contrary to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3717(u) and that the discrepancy was a simple clerical error that could be addressed by a nunc pro tunc order.After Defendant was convicted, the Supreme Court vacated his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. Following a resentencing hearing the district court sentenced Defendant to twenty-seven months in prison with twelve months of post release supervision for arson and a "hard 25" life sentence for first-degree murder. While the district court orally announced a term of lifetime parole the judge marked the box for "Lifetime Postrelease" supervision on the journal entry of judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded with directions, holding that the journal entry erroneously included lifetime postrelease supervision, requiring a nunc pro tunc order to correct that portion of Defendant's sentence in the journal entry. View "State v. Redick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendants' motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210 and his subsequent motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntariness when he entered the plea, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that Defendant did not preserve any issue on appeal as it related to his section 60-1507 motion and that Defendant made new arguments that were inappropriately raised for the first time on appeal. As to the denial of Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(d)(2), the Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw plea. View "Shelton-Jenkins v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of felony theft and unlawful acts concerning a computer but remanded the cause for a restitution hearing, holding that the amount of restitution awarded was not supported by substantial evidence.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony theft and unlawful acts concerning a computer and was ordered to serve eighteen months of probation and pay $4,100 in restitution. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court's failure to give a multiple acts instruction for the felony theft charge did not amount to reversible error; and (2) the restitution award in this case was not supported by substantial competent evidence. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Ninh was convicted of rape, indecent liberties with a child, and aggravated criminal sodomy related to allegations that over more than four years he sexually assaulted, raped, and sodomized his victim. The district court imposed 25 life sentences, running consecutive to five concurrent 165-month prison sentences.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting arguments that the Kansas rape and aggravated criminal sodomy statutes were unconstitutional and the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to sustain Ninh’s convictions. Statutory language prohibiting the defendant from using ignorance of whether the victim consented or was overcome by force or fear does not negate any of the prosecution's obligations to prove the essential elements of the crime—which Ninh did not challenge as vague—and thus does not permit arbitrary or unreasonable enforcement. Sufficient evidence existed for a rational fact-finder to find that the victim was overcome by fear while Ninh raped and sodomized her. The prosecutor’s statements concerning “some rapists” were not in error nor did the prosecutor misstate the evidence. The prosecutor's statement that Ninh's "form of force was grooming" was a misstatement of the law and constituted prosecutorial error but was harmless, considering the totality of the evidence. The prosecution did not violate Ninh’s right to a unanimous verdict. View "State v. Ninh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court and confirmed the existence of a common-law marriage between Margaret Heidkamp and Edward Ritter, holding that the district court's findings were supported by substantial competent evidence and that the court properly applied the rules.After Ritter died at the age of sixty-seven, Heidkamp filed a petition to declare relationship as common-law spouse. After a hearing, the district court concluded that Ritter and Heidkamp "were in a valid common-law marriage under the statute and common law of Kansas as of September 8, 2003" and that the relationship continued until Ritter's death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the components necessary to establish a common-law marriage existed in the relationship between Ritter and Heidkamp. View "In re Common-Law Marriage of Heidkamp & Ritter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the court of appeals and district court affirming the decision of the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) to suspend Appellant's driving privileges, holding that, contrary to Appellant's arguments on appeal, the KDOR had subject matter jurisdiction to act.On appeal, Appellant argued that the KDOR lacked subject matter jurisdiction to suspend his driving privileges because the law enforcement officer who pulled him over made a mistake in entering the date on his officer's certification and notice of suspension form (DC-27). The court of appeals disagreed and sided with out cases that "refused to treat strict compliance with Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1002 as jurisdictional." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) while the DC-27 contained mistakes, it satisfied the requirements of section 8-1002(a); and (2) therefore, the KDOR continued to have the authority to take action in this case. View "Fisher v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion, entitled "Request for Nunc Pro Tunc Order to Effectuate Compliance with Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3426," in which he asked the district court to amend the sentencing journal entries, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief.Defendant pled no contest to multiple felonies in three separate cases and was serving an aggregated sentence of eighty years to life in prison. At issue in this appeal was Defendant's motion for an order nunc pro tunc to correct his sentencing journal entries on the grounds that they did not reflect the sentences imposed by the district court. The lower courts denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Kansas Department of Corrections' calculation of Defendant's aggregate sentence reflected the sentence imposed by the district court. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

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