Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to modify his sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), which requires courts to modify sentences if certain sentencing provisions are found to be unconstitutional, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a sentencing modification.In 1999, Appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to a hard forty sentence. After a retrial in 2005, Appellant was again convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. Before sentencing, Appellant filed a motion arguing that the hard forty sentencing scheme violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The sentencing court denied the motion and again imposed a hard forty life sentence. In 2016, after the Supreme Court decided State v. Soto, 322 P.3d 344 (Kan. 2014), Appellant filed a motion for a sentencing modification under section 21-6628(c). The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion. View "State v. Albright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) by failing to register, holding that the legislature's decision to make the crime of failure to register a strict liability felony did not violate Defendant's substantive due process rights.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of violating KORA under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4903(a) and (c)(1)(A) based on his failure to report in person during the month of November 2017. On appeal, Defendant argued that the strict liability character of the offense was unconstitutional. The court of appeals disagreed and affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5203(e)'s strict liability criminalization of KORA registration violations did not violate Defendant's substantive due process rights. View "State v. Genson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of first-degree felony murder, one count of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling, and one count of criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in instructing the jury on his two felony-murder charges because the instructions contained no language on res gestate or causation. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that there was no error in the jury instructions given by the district court. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's appeal from the denial of her request for custody of N.E., holding that the doctrine of stare decisis warranted this Court's continued adherence to In re N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014), under which an order terminating parental rights is the last appealable order under Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2273(a), and post-termination orders are not appealable, even if they address custody.Child-in-need-of-care proceedings began when the State took protective custody of N.E. and ended when N.E. was adopted by her foster family. Appellant, N.E.'s grandmother, sought custody of N.E. during the proceedings and appealed the district court's denial of her request. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that section 38-2273(a), as construed under In re N.A.C., barred appellate review of each of the district court orders from which Appellant appealed. View "In re N.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals affirming and remanding this criminal case with directions, holding that there was no error in the district court's award of restitution.Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted theft. The district court sentenced him to ten months in prison and ordered him to pay restitution to the two victims of his crimes as a condition of his postrelease. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the restitution order but remanded for the issuance of a new journal entry clarifying that the payment of restitution was a condition of postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court reversed the remand order and otherwise affirmed, holding that the panel erred in deciding to remand for a nunc pro tunc order and that there was no error in the court of appeals' decision affirming the district court's restitution order. View "State v. Eubanks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1567(a)(3), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction but that an instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.Section 8-1567(a)(3) states that driving under the influence is "operating or attempting to operate" any vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle. At issue was whether the district court committed reversible error in the jury instructions by failing properly to define the word "operate" as used in the statute. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by denying Defendant's request to modify the instruction to define or replace "operate" as "drive." View "State v. Zeiner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder and his sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for fifty years, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and no error below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding of premeditation; (2) there was no error in the jury instructions; (3) Defendant did not preserve her argument that there was not an adequate showing in the record that her trial counsel received her informed consent to pursue a guilt-based defense; (4) there was no prosecutorial error; and (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion by not ordering a mental evaluation under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3429. View "State v. Hilyard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the ruling of the district court that Catherine Roll did not have a statutory right to remain at Parsons State Hospital and Training Center, where she had been a long-term resident, holding that the appeal was moot.Defendants sought to relocate Roll, a person with significant mental and physical disabilities, from the Hospital to a community-based treatment center. Through her guardians, Roll opposed the transfer, arguing that, under the Social Security Act (SSA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the proposed transfer from the Hospital violated her right to choose which facility would provide her treatment. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Roll appealed. Before the Court reached a decision on the merits, Defendants voluntarily provided Roll with the relief she had been seeking by stating their intention to maintain her residence at the Hospital. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case was moot. View "Roll v. Howard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing two of the charges against Appellant, which arose under Wichita Municipal Ordinances (W.M.O.) 3.06.030.A and 3.30.030.A, holding that W.M.O. 3.06.030.A is overbroad.The district court fully vacated Appellant's convictions, finding W.M.O. 3.06.030.A unconstitutionally overbroad because it intrudes on several examples of "Constitutionally protected behaviors." The court of appeals reversed the lower court's conclusion that W.M.O. 3.06.030.A was unconstitutionally overbroad and sua sponte reversed the dismal of the charge arising under W.M.O. 3.30.030.A. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) W.M.O. 3.06.030.A is unconstitutionally overbroad; and (2) the court of appeals erred by sua sponte dismissing the second municipal charge. View "City of Wichita v. Trotter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Kan. Stat. Ann. 74-2113 defines the rank of major within the classified service under the Kansas Civil Service Act (KCSA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-2925 et seq., and that K.A.R. 1-7-4 does not require a former Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) superintendent or assistant superintendent to serve another probationary period when returning to their former rank as contemplated in section 74-2113(a).The Supreme Court answered two questions of law certified to the court by a federal district court in a lawsuit Plaintiff filed against Governor Laura Kelly, Chief of Staff Will Lawrence, and Kansas Highway Patrol Superintendent Herman Jones (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiff, who previously served as superintendent of the KHP, alleged that Defendants forced him to resign his employment rather than returning him to the rank he held before his appointment to superintendent. Given the parties' conflicting interpretations of the statutes and regulations and the lack of controlling Kansas precedent on certain issues, the district court certified two questions. The Supreme Court answered the questions as set forth above. View "Bruce v. Kelly" on Justia Law