Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the district court's decision to revoke Defendant's probation, holding that the district court failed to follow the statutory graduated sanctions set out in Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3716.Section 22-3716 requires judges, except under certain circumstances set forth in a bypass exception, to impose specified intermediate sanctions before revoking a defendant's probation. In the instant case, Defendant committed multiple probation violations and received sanctions on two prior occasions. After a third violation, a district court judge revoked Defendant's probation without mentioning the bypass exception. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that the harmless error analysis does not apply to the district court's failure to follow the statutory graduated sanctions set forth in section 22-3716. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's entry of summary judgment for First Security Bank (FSB) in its foreclosure action against David and Linsay Buehne, holding that that the Buehnes's challenges on appeal were unavailing.FSB brought this foreclosure action after the Buehnes failed to make payments on the commercial promissory note they executed with FSB. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of FSB. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in concluding that a specific contractual clause in the note waiving the defense of the statute of limitations in advance was not void as against public policy. View "First Security Bank v. Buehne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, and aggravated assault, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.At his first trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal discharge of a firearm at a vehicle and aggravated assault, but the jury deadlocked on Defendant's felony-murder charge. After a second trial on the remaining charge, Defendant was convicted of felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly instructed the second jury on felony murder; (2) the State committed prosecutorial error in the first trial when it improperly appealed to the passions of the community, but the district court's prompt instruction to disregard cured this error, and any other assumed prosecutorial error was harmless; (3) the district court did not err in either trial by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of discharge of a firearm from a roadway; (4) there was no error in the jury instructions; and (5) the cumulative effect of any error was harmless. View "State v. Rhoiney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for first-degree felony murder, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were unavailing.Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, criminal threat, and distribution of methamphetamine. On appeal, Defendant argued that insufficient evidence supported his felony murder conviction and that the district court violated his common-law right to a jury trial by making judicial findings of his prior convictions to establish his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was guilty of felony murder; and (2) Defendant's constitutional challenge to the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act failed. View "State v. Pearce" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of a federal district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's federal claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims, holding that the doctrine of res judicata did not prevent Plaintiff from bringing the state law claims in state court.Plaintiff sued the City of Wichita and one of its police officers in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging federal civil rights violations and state law tort claims. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. Plaintiff refiled her state law claims in Sedgwick County District Court, which held that Plaintiff's state law claims were barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a federal court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice, there has been no final judgment on those state law claims, and res judicata does not preclude a litigant from bringing those claims in state court. View "Herington v. City of Wichita" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court dismissing as untimely and successive Defendant's motion filed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507, holding that the court was correct to dismiss the motion as untimely.Defendant was convicted in 2000 of premeditated murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary for acts he committed when he was fourteen years old. The district court sentenced Defendant to two concurrent life sentences without the possibility of parole for fifty years. Defendant later filed his section 60-1507 motion, arguing that the scheme under which he was sentenced violated the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant's motion was subject to an exception to the prohibition on successive motions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's sentencing scheme satisfied the constitutional requirements of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and therefore, it was unnecessary to consider Defendant's motion to prevent manifest injustice. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence of life imprisonment with no chance of parole for fifty years but vacated the district court's order imposing lifetime postrelease supervision and electronic monitoring as a condition of parole, holding that those components of Defendant's sentence were illegal.Defendant pleaded no contest to premeditated first-degree murder. The district court denied Defendant's request to depart from his presumptive hard fifty sentence and to instead sentence him to a hard twenty-five sentence. The court then imposed lifetime postrelease supervision and electronic monitoring as a condition of his parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's hard fifty sentence, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's departure motion; but (2) lacked authority to impose lifetime postrelease or electronic monitoring parole conditions. View "State v. Boswell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of identity theft, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish venue in Johnson County and that Defendant was properly convicted.In this ticket caper, a jury convicted Defendant of identity theft. On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish that she used stolen information in Johnson County, and therefore, venue was improper, and that she was improperly convicted of identity theft. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to establish venue in Johnson County; and (2) because the elements of identity theft and criminal use of a financial card are different, the two statues do not present identical offenses, and the court of appeals did not err when it found the more specific statute rule did not apply. View "State v. Euler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's ruling to strike Defendant's prior Missouri driving while intoxicated (DWI) convictions and reversed the court of appeals' holding that prior Missouri DWI convictions are not "comparable" to Kansas' driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) offense for purposes of sentencing a defendant as a repeat DUI offender, holding that the district court should have considered Defendant's prior Missouri DWI convictions.Given Defendant's two prior Missouri DWI convictions, the State charged Defendant with felony DUI as a third-time offender. Defendant moved to strike her DWI convictions from the proceedings. The district court granted the motion to strike, concluding that Defendant's prior Missouri DWI offenses were not "comparable" to those in Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1567 for purposes of determining whether Defendant was a repeat DUI offender. The State filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court remanded this matter, holding (1) the district court erred in striking Defendant's prior Missouri DWI convictions; and (2) the court of appeals erred in concluding that prior Missouri DWI convictions are not "comparable" to Kansas' DUI offense for purposes of sentencing a defendant as a repeat DUI offender. View "State v. Myers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the holdings of the lower courts in this case, holding that wages can be "earnings" under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-2310(a)(1) even after they are paid if the employee can specifically and directly identify the funds as wages.Plaintiff sued Defendant for $3,008, and Defendant consented to the judgment. At issue was a garnishment order issued under Kan. Stat. Ann. 61-3505(b)(1). Defendant objected to the garnishment, arguing that the funds in his bank account were "earnings" and could only be garnished under Kan. Stat. Ann. 61-3507. The district court and court of appeals ordered the bank to pay the withheld funds, concluding that Defendant's wages lost their status as "earnings" and could be garnished under section 61-3505 once his paycheck was deposited in his bank account. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) "paid" wages may in certain circumstances be deemed earnings for purposes of garnishment; and (2) this case must be remanded for further factual findings. View "Stormont-Vail Healthcare, Inc. v. Sievers" on Justia Law