Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeal dismissing the State's appeal in this criminal case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a district court's noncompliance with Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3716 does not fall within the scope of Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504.The district court ordered Defendant to serve a second prison sanction for violating the conditions of his probation. The State brought an appeal, arguing that the sanction constituted an illegal sentence because it did not comply with the graduated sanctioning scheme set forth in section 22-3716. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that appellate courts are not vested with jurisdiction to hear the State's appeal of an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding (1) Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504 vests appellate courts with jurisdiction to hear the State's appeal of an illegal sentence; but (2) a district court's noncompliance with section 22-3716 does not fall within the scope of section 22-3504, and no other statute provides a possible jurisdictional basis. View "State v. McCroy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion filed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 seeking a new trial based on allegations of ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims.Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Thereafter, Defendant brought this motion seeking a new trial based on allegations of ineffective assistance of both his trial counsel and appellate counsel. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court's findings of fact were supported by substantial competent evidence; (2) the findings of fact supported the district court's legal conclusion; and (3) Defendant received effective assistance of counsel during both his trial and during appellate proceedings. View "Khalil-Alsalaami v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for premeditated first-degree murder, along with his hard fifty sentence, holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err by telling the venire that the trial was "not a capital punishment case"; (2) the jury instruction on aiding and abetting was both legally and factually appropriate, and therefore, there was no error in submitting this instruction to the jury; (3) the prosecutor committed error in several portions of closing arguments, but the errors did not require reversal, either individually or cumulatively; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to depart from the presumptive hard fifty sentence. View "State v. Blevins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part Defendant's convictions of first-degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, abuse of a child, aggravated endangering a child, aggravated assault, and criminal damage to property, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in providing to the jury Instruction No. 15, the jury instruction on aggravated kidnapping with intent to facilitate a crime; (2) Instruction No. 9, the aiding and abetting instruction, did not misstate the law, was legally appropriate, and was constitutional; (3) Defendant's argument that his convictions for felony murder and aggravated child endangerment must be reversed because his convictions for those crimes were logically impossible was without merit; (4) Defendant's constitutional challenge to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2302(c) was without merit; (5) assuming without deciding that the prosecutor erred in saying that the victim's eyes were gone, the error was harmless; and (6) Defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5408(a)(3) is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "State v. Bodine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs' lawsuit against their doctor based on Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1906(a), holding that section 60-1906(a) does not violate the right to trial by jury guaranteed by section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights or the right to a remedy guaranteed by section 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.Plaintiffs sued their obstetrician, asserting that Defendant breached the applicable duty of care by failing to detect fetal abnormalities in an ultrasound. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the damages claim for future care made this a wrongful death lawsuit barred by section 60-1906(a). The district court granted judgment to Defendant based on the statute, determining that the statute was unconstitutional. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly applied section 60-1906(a) to conclude that Defendant was entitled to judgment on the pleadings. View "Tillman v. Goodpasture" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's denial of Mother's request seeking to order Father to pay half of her expenses for prenatal medical care and the birth of the parties' child, holding that the district court lacked the authority to grant relief.A hearing officer found Father was the child's father and ordered him to pay monthly child support. Mother later filed a request for expenses asking that Father pay half of her prenatal medical and child birth expenses. The district court denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court's authority to award prenatal care and birth expenses expired before Mother sought reimbursement. View "Carman v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the ruling of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of a vehicle search conducted by the Kansas Highway Patrol, holding that the suppression motion was improperly granted.The vehicle search in this case was based on a drug dog alert that occurred following a highway patrol trooper's processing of Defendant's traffic offense. The district court concluded that the duration of Defendant's detention to await the drug dog was unlawful and excessive. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trooper acted diligently under the circumstances; and (2) the continued detention was not excessive or unlawful. View "State v. Arrizabalaga" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's request for resentencing under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), holding that section 21-6628(c) does not create an avenue or independent means by which a convicted person can challenge his underlying sentence.Defendant was convicted of capital murder and attempted rape and sentenced to a hard fifty life sentence. As relevant to this appeal, Defendant moved to correct an illegal sentence. The district court ruled against Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for sentence modification because there was no procedural mechanism by which a Kansas court could reconsider his sentence. View "State v. Appleby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for sentence modification, holding that there was no procedural mechanism by which a Kansas court could reconsider Defendant's sentence.Defendant was convicted and sentenced for first-degree premeditated murder, capital murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. Defendant filed a motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), assertion that the sentencing judge engaged in judicial fact-finding to determine that aggravating factors required a minimum sentence of fifty years. The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 21-6628(c) does not create an avenue or independent means by which a convicted person can challenge his or her underlying sentence. View "State v. Trotter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's request for relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), formerly Kan. Stat. Ann,. 21-4639, holding that the district court properly denied Defendant's motion for sentence modification.Appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to a hard fifty life sentence. Appellant later brought this action asserting that he must be resentenced under section 21-6628 because the rule announced in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), rendered unconstitutional the sentencing statutes under which he was sentenced. The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no procedural mechanism by which a Kansas court may reconsider Defendant's sentence. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law