Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kevin and Gretchen Higdon, residents of Missouri, opened a joint bank account in Missouri, which was later held by Equity Bank. M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank obtained a judgment against Kevin in Missouri and sought to garnish the Higdons' account in Kansas to satisfy the judgment. The account was listed as "Joint (Right of Survivorship)" under Missouri law, which presumes a tenancy by the entirety for married couples, meaning the account could not be garnished for a judgment against only one spouse.The Johnson County District Court in Kansas denied the Higdons' motion to quash the garnishment, applying Kansas law, which does not recognize tenancy by the entirety. The court held that the account was a joint tenancy, allowing M & I Bank to garnish Kevin's half of the account. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, focusing on the procedural nature of garnishment under Kansas law.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the issue of account ownership was substantive, not procedural. The court applied the First Restatement of Conflict of Laws, which directs that the law of the state where the property interest was created (Missouri) should govern. Under Missouri law, the account was held as a tenancy by the entirety, and thus, M & I Bank could not garnish it for a judgment against Kevin alone.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case with directions to return the garnished funds to the Higdons, holding that Missouri law applied to the ownership of the account, preventing the garnishment. View "M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Higdon" on Justia Law

The case involves Riley D. Moore, who was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, criminal threat, and domestic battery after a violent altercation with his ex-girlfriend, M.M. During a post-breakup conversation, Moore dragged M.M. into a garage, closed the door, and prevented her from leaving. M.M. managed to escape but was followed by Moore, leading to a physical altercation near the street. M.M. suffered abrasions and pain. The jury found Moore guilty, and he was sentenced to 123 months in prison.The Sedgwick District Court convicted Moore, and he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of bodily harm and instructional errors. The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected his sufficiency argument but reversed the aggravated kidnapping conviction, citing cumulative prejudicial impact from two unpreserved jury instruction errors. The panel did not decide whether each error was clear before aggregating them.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the Court of Appeals erred by not considering whether each unpreserved instructional issue constituted clear error before combining them. The Supreme Court found neither instructional issue to be clearly erroneous. It also held that sufficient evidence supported the bodily harm element of the aggravated kidnapping conviction, as M.M. suffered abrasions and pain from Moore's actions. Additionally, the Supreme Court found the non-PIK instruction defining the taking-or-confining element to be legally and factually appropriate.The Kansas Supreme Court reinstated Moore's aggravated kidnapping conviction and affirmed the district court's judgment on all issues subject to review. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

In 2015, Brennan R. Trass was charged with first-degree felony murder and criminal possession of a firearm after killing Jose Morales during a drug deal. Trass admitted to the shooting, claiming self-defense. Before trial, the district court appointed multiple attorneys for Trass due to conflicts, causing significant delays. Two weeks before the trial in 2019, the court allowed Trass' attorneys to withdraw due to a conflict and ordered Trass to represent himself with standby counsel. During the trial, Trass was removed from the courtroom for refusing to participate, and his standby counsel took over. The jury convicted Trass.The Reno District Court initially handled the case, where Trass faced multiple attorney changes and delays. Trass filed a direct appeal, and the Kansas Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court to determine the feasibility of a retrospective competency hearing. The district court found Trass competent before and during his 2019 trial. Trass raised several issues on appeal, including violations of his right to counsel, speedy trial rights, and sufficiency of evidence.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court violated Trass' Sixth Amendment right to counsel by forcing him to represent himself without proper advisories or warnings about the dangers of self-representation. The court concluded that Trass did not waive his right to counsel knowingly and intelligently, nor did he forfeit it through egregious misconduct. The violation of Trass' right to counsel constituted structural error, requiring automatic reversal of his convictions. The court also found no violation of Trass' statutory right to a speedy trial and sufficient evidence to support his felony-murder conviction. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial before a different judge. View "State v. Trass" on Justia Law

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