Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw plea of no contest to one count of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, holding that the district court's decision in finding no good cause for Defendant to withdraw his plea was based on errors of fact and law, which were grounds for finding abuse of discretion.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest based on misleading or false statements contained in the plea agreement. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was enough uncertainty in this case to indicate that Defendant's plea agreement was not understandingly made; and (2) therefore, Defendant must be allowed to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Frazier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court on remand resentencing Defendant to his original mandatory term of imprisonment after once again finding he was not a person with intellectual disability, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected Defendant's intellectual disability motion and imposed a mandatory term of imprisonment.Defendant pled no contest to first-degree premeditated murder. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6622(b) asserting that he was a person with intellectual disability and was thus not subject to a mandatory minimum prison term. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence. While Defendant's appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Kan. Stat. Ann. 76-12b01(i), which provides new standards for deciding intellectual disability. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of Defendant's motion using the new criteria. On remand, the district court reaffirmed its earlier ruling and again sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's ruling was reasonably based on the law and was supported by substantial competent evidence. View "State v. Corbin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for second-degree murder, burglary, and theft but reversed Defendant's sentences, holding that any error during the guilt phase was harmless but that the district court erred by scoring Defendant's prior Florida burglary conviction as a person felony instead of a nonperson felony.On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that a trial court may instruct the jury on felony murder even though the State only charged the defendant with premeditated first degree murder. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in concluding that a district court may elect to provide a felony-murder instruction when that crime was not charged, and the district court properly found that the felony-murder instruction was not legally appropriate in this case; (2) the district court erred by excluding from evidence an exculpatory document from a Florida homicide investigation on the ground it was not relevant, but the error was harmless; and (3) the district court improperly scored Defendant's prior Florida burglary conviction as a person felony. View "State v. Broxton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of possession fo marijuana, holding that Defendant's waiver of jury trial was legally insufficient.On appeal, Defendant argued that he did not properly waive his right to a jury and asserted three other issues. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions without addressing the three remaining issues, holding that because the district court failed properly to apprise Defendant of his right to a jury trial and failed to ensure that Defendant understood the nature of the right he was giving up, Defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial was violated in this case. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

In this controversy arising from emergency proclamation issued by Governor Laura Kelly in response to the global public health crisis related to COVID-19 and her follow-up executive orders the Supreme Court granted in part the Governor's petition in quo warranto, holding that the Legislative Coordinating Council's purported revocation of Executive Order 20-18 was a nullity because the LCC did not act within its lawful authority.On March 12, the Governor proclaimed a state of disaster emergency. The Legislature then adopted House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 5025 extending the Governor's declaration to May 1, 2020. On April 7, the Governor issued Executive Order 20-18 relating to her March 12 emergency proclamation. The executive order temporarily prohibited mass gatherings, including religious gatherings and funerals. On April 8, the LCC revoked Executive Order 20-18. On April 9, Governor Kelly filed this original action in quo warranto challenging the purported revocation of her executive order. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, holding that the Legislature's alleged revocation of the executive order was a nullity because the LCC lacked authority to do so under the terms of HCR 5025. View "Kelly v. Legislative Coordinating Council" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's probation without first imposing intermediate sanctions, holding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3716(c)(9)(B) does not apply to probationers such as Defendant, whose offenses were committed before that statute's effective date.Effective July 1, 2017, the Legislature amended section 22-3716(c)(9)(B) to permit a trial court to revoke a probationer's probation without first imposing graduated sanctions if the probation was granted as the result of a dispositional departure. Defendant's probation in the instant case was granted as a dispositional departure and was revoked on November 1, 2017. The trial court ruled that because Defendant's probation had been granted as the result of dispositional departures, the court had the authority to revoke Defendant's probation and impose the underlying sentences without first imposing intermediate sanctions. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the trial court erred in applying section 22-3716(c)(9)(B) retrospectively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err by holding that section 22-3716(c)(9)(B) does not operate retrospectively. View "State v. Coleman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Kansas Corporation Commission approving a non-unanimous settlement agreement including certain rate design changes at issue in this case, holding that the new rate design violates Kansas law.In 2018, two utilities (Utilities) applied to the Commission for a rate increase. The application included a proposed rate increase of $52.6 million per year and changes in the residential rate design. The new rate structure was applicable only to residential distributed generation (DG) customers. Several parties intervened. Most of the parties reached a settlement agreement, but two of the objecting intervenors appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the new rate design violates Kansas law because Kan. Stat. Ann. 66-117d clearly prohibits the Utilities from price discrimination against DG customers. View "In re Joint Application of Westar Energy & Kansas Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law

In this case concerning the application of the statutory scheme permitting an employer that has provided workers compensation benefits to an injured employee to obtain both a subrogation interest in any recovery the employee receives from a third party and a credit for future benefits, the Supreme Court held that the Workers Compensation Board used the improper method for determining the subrogation lien and the future credit.In Employee's third party negligence action, the jury decided both the fault of Employer and the measure of Employee's damages from his workplace injury. The Board applied the jury's finding of fault to Employee's settlement with one of several defendants in his negligence action to compute the reduction in Employer's subrogation lien and future credit for workers compensation benefits it provided or will provide to Employee. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) consistent with Kan. Stat. Ann. 44-504(b), Employer's credit for future benefits should have been determined using each annual settlement payment to Employee from one of the third-party defendants when the payment was received; and (2) the Board erred in aggregating those payments and relying on the total amount when Employee would not receive the last installment for twenty years. View "Hawkins v. Southwest Kansas Co-op Service" on Justia Law

In this consolidated appeal challenging sentences imposed for crimes occurring both before and after statutory amendments in 2015 to the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6801, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision scoring a prior 1992 Kansas involuntary manslaughter conviction as a person felony for criminal history purposes.Defendant's direct appeal concerned two 2015 thefts committed after changes to the revised KSGA. Defendant's probation revocation appeals concerned sentences imposed thefts that occurred before 2015. The Supreme Court held that, as to the direct appeal, this Court adopts the identical-or-narrower test from State v. Wetrich, 412 P.3d 984 (2018), which should also be used for Kansas crimes committed before the sentencing guidelines used the person or nonperson designations. Using the Wetrich test, the Court held that the district court correctly classified a 1992 Kansas involuntary manslaughter conviction as a person felony in the sentencings for the 2015 thefts. As to the probation revocation appeals, the Supreme Court could held that no relief was available. View "State v. Coleman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, holding that there was sufficient evidence to prove intent to commit a robbery to support the convictions.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was not an adequate evidentiary basis for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to rob the victim at the time of the shooting. The Supreme Court first considered the evidence supporting an intent to rob, which was a necessary element for both the felony-murder and attempted aggravated robbery convictions, and then examined the evidence supporting the conspiracy conviction. The Supreme Court then held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support all the convictions; (2) the trial court erred in giving an aiding and abetting instruction, but the error was harmless; and (3) as to Defendant's remaining allegations of error, there was no error. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law