Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court denying Defendant's pro se motion styled as a "Motion to Set Aside a Void Judgment under Due Process of Law and K.S.A. 22-3210," holding that the trial court correctly analyzed the motion as a motion to withdraw plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210 and did not err in denying the motion as untimely.In 2000, Defendant pleaded guilty to premeditated first-degree murder and other crimes. In 2017, Defendant filed the motion that was the subject of this appeal. The trial court construed Defendant's motion as one to withdraw his plea under section 22-3210 and denied it as untimely. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in analyzing his motion as one to withdraw his plea instead of analyzing it as a motion to void his convictions and sentences and that he was denied due process during the plea process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court correctly analyzed the motion as one to withdraw plea; and (2) where Defendant neither asserted nor demonstrated any grounds of excusable neglect, the motion was procedurally barred. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court judge denying Defendant's motion for a new trial on the basis of DNA testing results, holding that the district judge did not abuse her discretion by concluding that there was no "reasonable probability" the DNA results would have changed the original trial's outcome.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to possess with intent to sell hallucinogenic drugs, and aggravated robbery. Approximately a dozen years later, Defendant filed a request for DNA testing on some items found at the crime scene. The district judge granted the request. Defendant filed a motion to set aside his conviction or grant him a new trial in light of the DNA test results. The district judge denied the motion, concluding that the new DNA evidence was "not reasonably probable to lead to a jury reaching a different result." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district judge did not abuse her discretion in denying relief. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as right for the wrong reason the judgment of the court of appeals holding that harmless constitutional error occurred when the district court responded to a jury question by having court staff deliver a written note to the jury room rather than convening in open court and answering the question in Defendant's presence, holding that no constitutional error occurred.Specifically, the court of appeals held that the district court violated Defendant's constitutional right to be present at a critical stage in the proceedings by responding in writing to the jury rather than giving the answer with Defendant present in the open court but that the error was harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3420(d) gave the district court discretion to deliver a written response to the jury room without having Defendant present; and (2) no constitutional error occurred in this case. View "State v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of possession of marijuana and cocaine, holding that the district court did not err in allowing Defendant to exercise her constitutional right of self-representation where the record did not establish that Defendant suffered from a severe mental illness.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court judge used the incorrect standard to determine whether she was competent to represent herself. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, without an indication that Defendant suffered from a severe mental illness, there was no basis to conclude that the district court judge abused his discretion when he allowed Defendant to waive her right to counsel and represent herself at trial. View "State v. Burden" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the uncertainty in the residual phrase in Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6304 defining a knife as "a dagger, dirk, switchblade, stiletto, straight-edged razor or any other dangerous or deadly cutting instrument of life character" is so great that the law is impermissibly and unconstitutionally vague.Defendant, a convicted felon, was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon stemming from his act of pulling out a pocketknife when he got into an altercation with another man. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by rejecting his vagueness challenge to section 21-6304, which makes it a crime for a convicted felon to possess a knife. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that section 21-6304 invites "varying and unpredictable" enforcement decisions on an "ad hoc and subjective basis" and, therefore, the residual clause in section 21-6304 is unconstitutionally vague. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

In this appeal from the termination of Father's parental rights consequent to an adoption, the Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the termination, holding that the district court correctly terminated Father's parental rights and that Father's constitutional challenge to Kan. Stat. Ann. 59-2136 was not preserved for review.In his petition for review, Father challenged the factual basis for the termination order and also challenged, for the first time, the constitutionality of Kan. Stat. Ann. 59-2136(h)(1)(D), on which the termination was based. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court declines to address the constitutional issue because it was raised neither in the district court nor in the court of appeals; and (2) the court of appeals correctly upheld the district court's finding that Father failed to support the mother during the last six months of her pregnancy without reasonable cause excusing the lack of support. View "In re Adoption of Baby Girl G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals that it lacked jurisdiction to review the failure by the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) to issue a full and complete opinion in an ad valorem tax dispute after the opinion was requested, holding that the court erred when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the allegation that BOTA illegally failed timely to issue a full and complete opinion.Taxpayers appealed Johnson County's ad valorem tax valuations for the 2016 tax year on seven commercial properties. The BOTA entered a written summary decision ordering lower values for each property. Five weeks later, the County asked BOTA to issue the full and complete opinion. BOTA failed to do so. The County petitioned the court of appeals for judicial review. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded, holding that the court of appeals (1) had jurisdiction over the issue of whether BOTA acted properly in failing timely to issue a full and complete opinion; and (2) correctly dismissed the appeal as it pertained to the County's effort to obtain judicial review of the summary decision. View "In re Equalization Appeals of Target Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm, aggravated battery, and criminal threat, holding that any error during the proceedings below was harmless.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by (1) declining to give his proffered instruction clarifying the definition of aiding and abetting, and (2) erred in granting the State's motion to consolidate his charges for trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any possible error in failing to give Defendant's requested jury instruction on aiding and abetting was harmless; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating Defendant's charges for trial. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for, among other things, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of oxycodone, holding that the trial court's admission of Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455 was evidence was not error and that sufficient evidence supported Defendant's possession of oxycodone conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the trial court erred in admitting section 60-455 evidence related to two prior methamphetamine sales to undercover detectives approximately one week before his arrest, (2) the trial court clearly erred in instructing the jury on possession of oxycodone, and (3) his conviction for possession of oxycodone was supported by insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting the prior crimes evidence; (2) invited error precluded Defendant's jury instruction claim; and (3) sufficient evidence supported Defendant's conviction for possession of oxycodone. View "State v. Brazzle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of child abuse and felony murder with the underlying felony of child abuse but vacated the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision, holding that the trial court did not err in convicting Defendant but erred in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence provided sufficient proof to show that Defendant's action was knowingly done and cruel as required by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5602(a)(3); (2) the court did not err in instructing the jury "If you have no reasonable doubt as to the truth of each of the claims required to be proved by the State, you should find the defendant guilty"; and (3) the court improperly ordered lifetime postrelease supervision. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law