Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On the evening of February 11, 2018, Deizmond C. Peters and three accomplices allegedly committed a series of crimes at a Wichita home, resulting in the death of Donte Devore. The group, armed with handguns, entered the home after assaulting Devore on the porch. During an altercation inside, Devore was shot and killed. Peters was later charged with first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, criminal possession of a weapon, and four counts of aggravated assault.The Sedgwick District Court held a jury trial where Peters was convicted on all charges. Peters filed a motion for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the court denied. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 618 months plus an additional 332 months. Peters appealed his convictions, raising several claims of trial and sentencing errors.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found merit in two of Peters' arguments. First, the court agreed that the evidence did not support his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon due to an error in the stipulation used to prove this charge. Second, the court noted that the sentencing journal entry of judgment improperly omitted Peters' jail credit award of 1,437 days. The court affirmed the remaining convictions, finding no error in the jury selection process, prosecutorial conduct, jury instructions, or the cumulative error doctrine. The court also upheld the method of determining Peters' criminal history under the Kansas Criminal Sentencing Guidelines, rejecting his constitutional challenge.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case with directions to vacate Peters' sentence for criminal possession of a weapon, resentence him without the reversed conviction, and issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the sentencing journal entry to include the jail credit award. View "State v. Peters" on Justia Law

Phillip Jason Garrett was accused of inappropriately touching a minor, L.A., who was under 14 years old. During a police interview, Garrett confessed to some of the allegations. The district court suppressed his statements, concluding they were involuntary due to deceptive police practices, including the use of a computerized voice stress analysis (CVSA) test, which officers falsely claimed was 100% accurate.The Saline District Court initially denied Garrett's motion to suppress, finding his statements voluntary. However, the court later reversed its decision, emphasizing the deceptive nature of the CVSA and the officers' tactics. The State appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court's suppression order, holding that the district court had placed undue weight on the deceptive practices and failed to consider the totality of the circumstances.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the deceptive practices by law enforcement, including the exaggerated claims about the CVSA's accuracy, did not constitute misconduct under the totality of the circumstances. The court noted that Garrett was a mature adult of average intelligence, fluent in English, and that the interrogation was not unduly prolonged or aggressive. The court concluded that the officers' tactics did not overbear Garrett's will, and thus, his confession was voluntary. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Garrett" on Justia Law

The case involves the termination of a father's parental rights to his four minor children. The children were adjudicated as children in need of care (CINC) and placed in foster care due to the mother's suspected drug use, the family's unstable living situation, and noncompliance with a medical safety plan for one child's special needs. Over three years, the father relied on the mother as the primary contact with agencies and maintained that she would be the primary caretaker upon reintegration. However, the mother was repeatedly incarcerated, failed drug tests, and submitted falsified documents. The father, although appropriate during visits, was not engaged in the reintegration process and failed to meet the goals of his court-ordered reintegration plan.The Johnson District Court extended the parents' reintegration plans three times without sufficient progress and terminated parental rights after two failed attempts to place the children in Missouri, where the parents had bought a home. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination decision for both parents. The father petitioned for review, questioning whether the district court properly considered his unfitness separate from the mother's and whether the termination was an abuse of discretion.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no error. The court held that the father was unfit by clear and convincing evidence due to his failure to engage in the reintegration process, reliance on the mother despite her issues, and failure to provide a sustainable childcare plan. The court also found that the father's unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, given the three-year period without significant progress. The court concluded that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children, considering their need for permanency and the father's inability to provide a stable and safe environment. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the district court. View "In re D.G." on Justia Law

In May 2019, Mia Marie Collins attempted to flee from police in a stolen vehicle in downtown Wichita, resulting in a collision that killed two people and injured three others. Collins was charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of felony murder. She pled guilty to the felony murder charges, one count of fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, and three counts of aggravated battery, while other charges were dismissed. The plea agreement recommended concurrent sentences except for one aggravated battery count, which was to run consecutively based on the victim's severe injuries.The Sedgwick District Court, presided over by Judge Tyler J. Roush, held a hearing on Collins' motion to withdraw her plea. Collins argued that the State failed to disclose a news article about a civil settlement involving one of the victims, which she claimed would have influenced her decision to accept the plea deal. The district court found that the State did not have the information about the settlement at the time of the plea agreement and had no duty to know it. The court denied Collins' motion, stating that the State had not suppressed evidence and that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that there was no Brady violation because the State did not suppress any evidence, willfully or inadvertently. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Collins' motion to withdraw her plea, as the plea was made with full knowledge of the circumstances. Additionally, the court dismissed Collins' appeal regarding jail time credit as moot, since she had already been awarded the credit she sought. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

Adrian N. Zongker was a customer at a restaurant in Wichita, Kansas, owned by Oscar and Amelia Acosta. After finishing his meal, Zongker left the restaurant but returned shortly after, searching for a missing receipt and a bag of coins. Oscar helped Zongker search outside, but Zongker shot Oscar in the chest, killing him. Zongker was arrested nearby and confessed to the shooting, claiming the restaurant owners had stolen from him. At trial, Zongker was found competent to stand trial and rejected a plea deal for second-degree murder, opting to go to trial for first-degree murder.The Sedgwick District Court convicted Zongker of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon. Zongker moved for a downward durational departure at sentencing, citing his mental illness, but the court denied the motion and imposed a hard 50 life sentence. Zongker appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation, improper jury instructions, prosecutorial error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence in part. The court found sufficient evidence of premeditation, noting Zongker's conduct before and after the shooting and his statements indicating intent. The court upheld the additional jury instructions on premeditation, finding them appropriate given the temporal questions in the case. While the court identified prosecutorial errors in misstating facts, it deemed them harmless. The court declined to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as it was not preserved for review. The court also found no cumulative error warranting reversal. However, the court vacated the sentence for criminal possession of a weapon, finding it illegal, and remanded for resentencing on that count. View "State v. Zongker" on Justia Law

A father, H.S., was in federal custody during a hearing to terminate his parental rights to his child, A.S. He attended the hearing via Zoom, while the hearing was otherwise conducted in person. The father argued that his limited ability to participate in the hearing amounted to a due process violation.The Leavenworth District Court held a permanency hearing and concluded that reintegration was no longer a viable plan for A.S., and that permanent custodianship or adoption was in the child's best interests. Subsequently, the State moved to terminate the parental rights of both parents. During the termination hearing, the father attended remotely but was unable to testify or meaningfully participate. The district court found the father unfit and terminated his parental rights. The father appealed, claiming insufficient evidence and a due process violation. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting the father's claims.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the due process claim. The court held that the father's due process rights were violated because he was not given the opportunity to testify, communicate with counsel, or otherwise fully participate in the hearing. The court emphasized that a parent's right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their child is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the risk of erroneous deprivation of this interest was high due to the procedures used, and that the State's interests did not justify the limitations placed on the father's participation.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the district court, and remanded the case for a new termination hearing that ensures the father's due process rights are protected. View "In re A.S." on Justia Law

In March 2021, Bryan Curtis Daniels Jr. pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of domestic battery. The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) report, which indicated Daniels had a criminal history score of "C," including a 2003 Georgia burglary conviction classified as a person felony. Daniels did not dispute his criminal history at sentencing and admitted its accuracy. Consequently, the court sentenced him based on this history.Daniels appealed, arguing for the first time that his 2003 Georgia burglary conviction should not have been classified as a person felony, thus rendering his sentence illegal. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Daniels had the burden to prove his criminal history was incorrect. The panel interpreted K.S.A. 21-6811(e)(3)(B) and concluded that the district court had not committed an error of law in classifying the Georgia conviction as a person felony.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether Daniels' Georgia burglary conviction was misclassified. The court held that Daniels' admission to his criminal history, including the classification of the Georgia burglary as a person felony, relieved the State from producing additional evidence. The court also clarified that under K.S.A. 21-6814(c), an offender challenging their previously established criminal history must prove their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Daniels failed to provide evidence to refute his admission or to show that the district court's classification was incorrect. Consequently, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of both the Court of Appeals and the district court, upholding Daniels' sentence. View "State v. Daniels" on Justia Law

In 2019, Z.M. drove a vehicle from which a passenger shot at another car, killing the driver, J.M. Z.M. was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, first-degree felony murder, and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle. He was sentenced to a hard 50 life sentence.The Shawnee District Court denied Z.M.'s request for new counsel, finding no conflict of interest or breakdown in communication. Z.M. was found competent to stand trial. At trial, the State presented 34 witnesses, and Z.M. did not present any. The jury found Z.M. guilty on all counts. The court sentenced Z.M. to concurrent sentences for premeditated first-degree murder and criminal discharge of a firearm.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Z.M. alleged five errors: denial of new counsel, abandonment by trial counsel at sentencing, prosecutorial misstatements of law, inappropriate jury instructions, and cumulative errors denying a fair trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying new counsel, as the district court conducted an adequate inquiry and found no conflict or breakdown in communication. The court also found no Cronic violation at sentencing, as counsel did advocate for concurrent sentences.The court determined the prosecutor did not misstate the law on aiding and abetting, premeditation, or first-degree murder. The aiding and abetting instruction was legally appropriate, and the phrase "mental culpability" was comprehensible. However, the court acknowledged the jury instructions on first-degree murder and its lesser included offense were not legally appropriate, but this did not rise to the level of clear error. The jury's unanimous verdicts on both premeditated and felony murder indicated the errors did not affect the outcome.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Z.M.'s convictions and sentence, finding no cumulative error that denied him a fair trial. View "State v. Z.M." on Justia Law

Eight rural electric cooperatives (RECs) sought judicial review after the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) denied their property valuation challenges for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. The RECs argued that the valuation methodology used by the Kansas Department of Revenue's Property Valuation Division (PVD) violated the requirement for "generally accepted appraisal procedures" under K.S.A. 79-5a04. The RECs elected to go to district court for a trial de novo, which allows for an evidentiary hearing where issues of law and fact are determined anew.The Shawnee County District Court agreed with the RECs, concluding that PVD's valuation methodology violated K.S.A. 79-5a04. The court found that the methodology resulted in non-uniform and unequal valuations of the RECs' properties, thus inflating their property values and taxes. The district court ordered PVD to adjust its methodology to account for the RECs' treatment of margin stabilization adjustments (MSAs) in their net operating income (NOI).On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court exceeded its scope of judicial review by considering issues not raised before BOTA. The Supreme Court held that a trial de novo under K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 74-2426(c)(4)(B) does not expand a district court's scope of judicial review beyond what is permitted by K.S.A. 77-617. The court determined that the RECs had only raised a constitutional issue regarding uniform and equal taxation before BOTA, not a statutory compliance issue under K.S.A. 79-5a04. Therefore, the district court exceeded its scope of review by deciding on the statutory issue.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court improperly expanded its scope of review by addressing the statutory compliance issue that was not litigated before BOTA. View "FreeState Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Larry D. Huggins III was convicted of felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery following a series of events that led to the deaths of two young men. Huggins and his accomplices planned to rob O.H., a minor who sold marijuana, but the plan went awry, resulting in a shootout. Huggins was injured and later arrested. At trial, Huggins testified, denying any intent to rob and claiming he was merely trying to buy marijuana.The Shawnee District Court found Huggins guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to a hard 25 life sentence for felony murder, with additional consecutive sentences for the other charges, totaling a minimum of 25 years plus 103 months. Huggins was also ordered to pay $2,500 in attorney fees.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed several issues on appeal. Huggins argued that the jury instructions were erroneous because they did not match the charging document, which listed two victims for the attempted aggravated robbery. The court found the instructions legally appropriate as they included all statutory elements of the crime. Huggins also claimed insufficient evidence for his convictions, but the court held that the State did not need to prove he intended to rob both victims named in the charging document.Huggins challenged the voluntariness of his statements to police, arguing he was under the influence of medication and fatigued. The court found his statements voluntary, noting he was coherent and calm during the interview. Huggins also contested the admissibility of Facebook messages obtained via a search warrant, but the court ruled he failed to preserve this issue for appeal.The court found no prosecutorial error in the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments and rejected Huggins' claim of cumulative error. However, the court vacated the imposition of attorney fees, remanding the case for reconsideration of Huggins' ability to pay. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated and remanded the fee imposition. View "State v. Huggins" on Justia Law