Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's motions to correct illegal sentences for three counts of first-degree murder and other crimes, holding that Defendant's claims failed.Defendant brought a series of pro se motions attacking his convictions. The district court consolidated the motions and summarily denied them, concluding that none of the motions raised a substantial issue of law or fact that would support the grounds for relief allowed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district judge did not err in summarily denying Defendant's motions to correct an illegal sentence. View "State v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily dismissing Defendant's motion filed under Kan. stat. Ann. 22-3501 seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, holding that the district court did not err in summarily dismissing the motion as untimely.More than twenty years after the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder Defendant filed his section 22-3501 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The district court denied the motion as time-barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in construing Defendant's pleading to be a motion for a new trial and in refusing to construe it to be one brought under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507; and (2) did not err in summarily dismissing the motion as untimely. View "State v. Davidson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's second direct appeal asserting claims that would have existed at the time the first appeal was filed, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Appellant's untimely appeal.In 1993, Appellant was convicted and sentenced for various crimes related to a homicide. In 2013, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal, arguing that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear his late appeal under an exception to the general rule disallowing late appeals. After eight years of litigation, the appeal was ultimately unsuccessful. Appellant filed a second appeal nearly thirty years after his sentencing attempting to appeal his sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court lacked appellate jurisdiction. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for felony murder and aggravated robbery, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the indictment forming the basis of his conviction was statutorily and constitutionally defective, that the district court erred in several respects, and that the cumulative effect of those errors violated his constitutional right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the second superseding indictment did not implicate Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3015 or deprive Defendant of due process; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss or in admitting into evidence the deposition testimony of a witness unavailable to testify at trial; (3) Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction; and (4) where there was no error, the cumulative doctrine did not apply. View "State v. Keys" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree felony murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of child endangerment, and other crimes, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed Defendant's first-degree murder conviction and vacated his sentence. Upon a motion for rehearing by the State, the Supreme Court asked the parties to brief issues related to the use of self-defense. The Supreme Court then affirmed Defendant's felony-murder conviction, holding (1) a self-defense instruction may only be given in felony-murder cases to the extent it may negate an element of the underlying inherently dangerous felony; and (2) because Defendant's alleged self-defense in this case could not legally justify any of the elements of the underlying inherently dangerous felony of aggravated robbery Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction. View "State v. Holley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possessing methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia, rendered after a second trial, holding that there was no error, either individually or cumulatively, that warranted a new trial in this case.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) the district court did not err by failing to give a limiting instruction for a law enforcement officer's testimony; (3) a limiting instruction was not warranted as to certain DNA evidence; and (4) there was no merit to Defendant's claim of prosecutorial error. View "State v. Sieg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions of two alternative counts of felony murder, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.Defendant's first felony-murder conviction was based on the underlying felony of attempted aggravated robbery under an aiding and abetting theory of liability. On appeal, Defendant argued that a clearly erroneous instructional error, together with insufficient evidence, warranted reversal of his conviction. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the instructional error kept the jury from making the requisite finding that Defendant specifically intended to commit aggravated robbery; and (2) the State's evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Defendant specifically intended to commit aggravated robbery. View "State v. Mora" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court reversing the order of the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) affirming the determination of the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) that Gene Bicknell was a Kansas resident in 2005 and 2006, holding that the findings supported the district court's legal conclusion that Gene was domiciled in Florida in 2005 and 2006.After launching a review of Gene's 2005 and 2006 tax returns the KDOR determined that Gene was a Kansas resident during the relevant years. The BOTA affirmed. The district court reversed, concluding that Gene was a Florida resident during the assessment period. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court had improperly shifted the burden of proof from Gene to KDOR. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) venue for these proceedings was proper in Crawford County; and (2) the district court recognized and held Gene to his burden to prove he was a Florida resident during the assessment period. View "Bicknell v. Kansas Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony murder with the underlying felony of attempted distribution of marijuana, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Defendant's convictions arose from a drug buy in which the victim and intended purchaser attacked Defendant and attempted to steal the marijuana. Defendant shot and killed the intended purchaser during the scuffle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense and in finding that Defendant was not entitled to self-defense immunity; (2) the instructions on attempted distribution of marijuana were not in error; and (3) the district court did not erroneously deny Defendant's motion for acquittal. View "State v. Milo" on Justia Law

In this consolidated workers compensation appeal arising from disputes between EagleMed, LLC, a critical care transportation service, and Travelers Insurance, a workers compensation insurance carrier, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment directing the Workers Compensation Appeals Board to dismiss this proceeding, holding that remand was required.49 U.S.C. 41713(b)(1) prohibits states from enacting or enforcing any law related to a service of an air carrier providing air transportation. Kan. Stat. Ann. 44-510i(c)(2) requires the Director of the Division of Workers Compensation to oversee health care provider services to ensure charges are "fair, reasonable, and necessary." At issue was the phrase "usual and customary charges." The Board decided it lacked jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of air ambulance charges that would reduce the amount owed, made no factual determination whether the disputed billings were "usual and customary charges," and ordered Travelers to pay in full. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the panel's decision and the Board's order that Travelers pay EagleMed in full and remanded the case for the Board to decide whether the charges were "usual and customary," holding that the Board will need to interpret this term in a manner reflecting both federal law and the state's legislative purposes. View "EagleMed v. Travelers Insurance" on Justia Law