Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court not to order the return of restitution previously collected and distributed to Defendant's victims after the Supreme Court remanded the case upon deciding a clerical error may have led to restitution being mistakenly collected from Defendant, holding that there was no error.Defendant was serving a life sentence on felony murder when he filed the pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence at issue on this appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that a clerical error could have led to a collection agency wrongfully collected restitution during Defendant's imprisonment and remanded Defendant's motion to the district court to decide whether any clerical error required collection. The district court ordered that the error be corrected and that collection efforts cease but determined that it lacked authority to order the return of funds distributed to victims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court had authority to order third parties to return those funds. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the portion of the judgment of the court of appeals reversing one of Defendant's two alternatively charged convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, holding that the panel overstepped its discretion by dictating that the second conviction must be reversed.The State charged Defendant with two alternative counts of fleeing or attempting to elude an officer. The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts, and Defendant was convicted accordingly. At sentencing, the State suggested that the district court could hold count two in abeyance and sentence Defendant on count one. The district court agreed. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that the district court lacked authority to enter both convictions and had no authority to hold one conviction in abeyance. The court then reversed Defendant's second conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded the case, holding that the guilty verdicts on alternative counts charging the same crime merge by operation of law to result in a single conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement. View "State v. Vargas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to aggravated intimidation of a witness, aggravated domestic battery, and two counts of violation of a protective order, holding that the sentencing judge did not err in classifying a Missouri kidnapping conviction as a person felony.When Defendant committed the crimes at issue on appeal, the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6801 et seq., directed sentencing judges to classify an out-of-state conviction as a nonperson crime if no Kansas crime compared to the out-of-state crime. If, however, there was a comparable Kansas crime and the legislature classified it as a person crime, the sentencing judge should also classify the out-of-state conviction as a person crime. The sentencing judge in this case classified Defendant's kidnapping conviction as a person offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Missouri crime of felony first-degree kidnapping is comparable to kidnapping as defined by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5408, a person felony. View "State v. Samuels" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals panel reversing the decision of the district court denying Father's motion to modify residential custody of his daughter, J.F., holding that the panel's decision presented plain error by making its own factual findings after reweighing the evidence and reaching the conclusion of which parent should have residential custody.In 2012, Father filed a motion for temporary order of parenting time alongside a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. The district court awarded joint legal custody to the parents, primary residency with Mother, and reasonable parenting time with Father. In 2017, Father moved to modify residential custody of J.F., arguing that J.F. should live with him in Pennsylvania rather than in Kansas with Mother. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals panel reversed after finding error with two of the district court's findings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the panel reweighed the evidence and made its own factual findings upon which it found the district court abused its discretion; and (2) even in light of the holding that the district court erred in concluding that Mother would be financially unable to exercise parenting time out of state, the panel's remedy of a custody change was inappropriate. View "State ex rel. Secretary, Department for Children & Families v. M.R.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction this appeal brought approximately nineteen years after a district court adjudicated I.A. as a juvenile offender, holding that due process and procedural fairness did not require this Court to hear I.A.'s out-of-time appeal.I.A. pled guilty to two counts of reckless aggravated battery for acts he committed when he was seventeen years old. About nineteen years after his sentencing, I.A. filed a pro se request to file a direct appeal out of time, arguing that the judge had not announced his right to appeal. The court of appeals held that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kansas appellate courts lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal if a juvenile offender did not follow statutory directives, and due process did not require the Court to make an exception. View "In re I.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's probation and ordering him to serve his underlying sentence, holding that the district court did not err in revoking Defendant's probation.Defendant entered into a plea agreement for failing to register as an offender. The district court sentenced him to 120 months' incarceration but granted him probation for a thirty-six-month period. In 2013, the State filed a second motion to revoke Defendant's probation, alleging several violations. The district court revoked Defendant's probation and ordered him to serve his original prison sentence. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case. On remand, the court revoked Defendant's probation and ordered him to serve his underlying sentence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error by the district court or the court of appeals. View "State v. Dooley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and two counts of interference with a law enforcement officer and his controlling hard fifty sentence, holding that the district court's evidentiary rulings were not in error and that cumulative error did not deny him a fair trial.On appeal, Defendant asserted that the district court repeatedly erred by admitting evidence in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455 and by admitting hearsay evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that the district court judge erred by either failing to properly analyze evidence under section 60-455, failing to properly exclude it, or failing to properly instruct the jury, the error would be harmless in light of the entire record; (2) Defendant's second claim of error was plainly invited by Defendant; and (3) the evidence continued to render the assumed errors in this case harmless, even when their cumulative effect was considered. View "State v. Knapp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part Defendant's convictions for premeditated first-degree murder, felony murder (in the alternative), two counts of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated battery, conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and rape, holding that the State presented insufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant failed to preserve an objection to the district court's limitation of cross-examination of a witness's potential charges or sentences; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of another witness; (3) the prosecutor did not misstate the law during closing arguments; (4) there was no error in the jury instructions; (5) the prosecutor did not commit error by describing the proper sequence of consideration of lesser included offenses during closing arguments; (6) Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance was unsupported by the evidence; (7) the district court properly admitted the admission of an audio recording of an individual's torture; and (8) Defendant's prior California crime was properly classified as a person felony. View "State v. Hillard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences stemming from three murders at her home, holding that none of Defendant's allegations of error warranted reversal of her convictions.A jury convicted Defendant of three counts of felony murder with two alternative underlying felonies, aggravating kidnapping or aggravated assault, and related crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor did not misstate the law during closing arguments and made a permissible statement about credibility; (2) the district court did not by refusing to modify Instruction No. 8 to make explicit reference about witnesses who testify for the State in exchange for receiving benefits; and (3) the record was inadequate to permit meaningful appellate review of Defendant's sentencing agreement claim. View "State v. Liles" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower courts that a natural gas utility company's invoicing practice was "unjust, unreasonable, [or] unfair" under Kan. Stat. Ann. 66-1,206(a), holding that the lower courts reached the correct conclusion.Plaintiffs complained to the Kansas Corporation Commission about Texas-Kansas-Oklahoma Gas, LLC's (TKO) billing practices. The Commission decided that Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proving that TKO's rates or practices with regard to them were unreasonable. On review, the district court agreed with Plaintiffs and remanded the case to the Commission to calculate how much TKO overbilled Plaintiffs. The court of appeals agreed that the Commission erred in its analysis of TKO's billing methodology but altered the district court's refund directive and ordered the Commission to decide an appropriate remedy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) TKO's calculating method constituted an unlawful practice; and (2) the case is remanded to the Commission to fashion an appropriate remedy. View "Hanson v. Kansas Corp. Commission" on Justia Law