Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On February 17, 2019, Justin Gaston was shot and killed in a motel parking lot in Wichita, Kansas. Investigators arrested Christopher D. Kemmerly based on circumstantial evidence, including messages from his phone and statements from his girlfriend, Reyna Wallace, and Christopher Breedlove. Kemmerly was charged with felony murder, criminal possession of a weapon, theft, and arson. After a five-day trial, a jury found him guilty. Kemmerly moved for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the district court granted. At his second trial, Kemmerly chose to represent himself and was again found guilty on all charges.The Sedgwick District Court initially allowed Kemmerly to represent himself after a thorough colloquy to ensure his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. During the second trial, Kemmerly requested counsel midtrial, which the court denied, citing the disruption and delay it would cause. The court found that Kemmerly's waiver of his right to counsel was valid and that his midtrial request for counsel was untimely.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the district court did not violate Kemmerly's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by allowing him to represent himself, as the waiver was knowing and intelligent. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Kemmerly's midtrial request for counsel, as it would have caused significant disruption. Additionally, the court ruled that sufficient evidence supported Kemmerly's convictions, and it declined to address his constitutional challenge to K.S.A. 21-6304(a)(3)(A) because it was not raised in the lower court. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Kemmerly's convictions and sentence. View "State v. Kemmerly" on Justia Law

American Warrior, Inc. owned an oil and gas lease on a 177-acre tract in Finney County, Kansas. In 2020, Huber Sand, Inc. acquired surface rights to the same tract and applied for a conditional use permit to operate a sand and gravel quarry. The Finney County Board of Zoning Appeals approved the permit with conditions after public meetings and consideration of community feedback.The Finney District Court upheld the permit's issuance, ruling that the County properly delegated the authority to issue conditional use permits to the Zoning Board. American Warrior appealed, arguing that the local procedure conflicted with state law, specifically K.S.A. 12-757, which outlines procedures for amending zoning regulations. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court, holding that the County's procedure conflicted with state law, relying on precedents from Crumbaker v. Hunt Midwest Mining, Inc. and Manly v. City of Shawnee.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Finney County's zoning regulations did not conflict with state law. The Court found that K.S.A. 12-757 applies only to amendments of zoning regulations and not to the issuance of conditional use permits. The Court also determined that the County's regulations, which allow the Zoning Board to issue conditional use permits, were valid under K.S.A. 12-755 and K.S.A. 12-759. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the validity of the conditional use permit issued to Huber Sand, Inc. View "American Warrior, Inc. v. Board of Finney County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Christopher Michael Jacobson pled guilty to one count of robbery for an incident that occurred in December 2013. He was sentenced in May 2015 to 130 months in prison based on a criminal history score of A. In 2019, Jacobson moved to correct his sentence, arguing that his criminal history score was incorrect. The district court denied his motion, but during the appeal process, the parties agreed that his sentence was illegal. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to exclude certain Missouri municipal ordinance violations from his criminal history score. At resentencing, the district court applied the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing and reduced his sentence to 120 months.The Court of Appeals vacated the new sentence and remanded the case again, directing the district court to apply a more recent legal standard from State v. Wetrich, which would classify Jacobson's Missouri convictions as nonperson crimes. The State petitioned for review, arguing that the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing should apply, as established in State v. Clark.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing determines the legality of a sentence when a case arises from a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in treating Jacobson's resentencing as a direct appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the district court's application of the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing, which was consistent with the precedent set in Clark. View "State v. Jacobson" on Justia Law

Becky Anne Wilson was prosecuted for financial theft from her employer, Valley Hope Association. She pled guilty to three felonies: theft by deception, making a false information, and attempted theft by deception. The district court sentenced her to 24 months' probation for each conviction and ordered her to pay $65,864 in restitution with interest. Twenty-three months into her probation, the court revoked it and ordered her to serve consecutive prison sentences for each felony. Wilson appealed, arguing that the probation terms for the two lower-level felonies could not be revoked as she had completed their statutory terms and also challenged the interest order.The Kansas Court of Appeals agreed with Wilson, holding that the district court overstepped its authority by extending her probation until full restitution was paid and that the interest order was illegal. The State sought review from the Kansas Supreme Court.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the probation issue, holding that the district court properly extended Wilson's probation until she fully paid her restitution obligation, thus having jurisdiction to revoke her probation and impose the prison terms. However, on the interest issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals but on different grounds. The Supreme Court held that while K.S.A. 21-6604(b)(1) permits monetary interest as part of restitution when evidence shows it is a damage or loss caused by the defendant's crime, the district court in this case did not make the necessary findings to support the causal connection for the interest award. Therefore, the interest portion of the restitution order was vacated. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

A few days after Thanksgiving in 2018, Zshavon Malik Dotson shot and killed his friend Ronald "R.J." Marks Jr. at R.J.'s home in Kansas City. Dotson and R.J. had struggled over R.J.'s rifle, and Dotson shot R.J. in the kitchen after gaining control of the weapon. Dotson claimed he acted in self-defense, while R.J.'s mother, Carolyn Marks, testified that Dotson was the aggressor. A jury found Dotson guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated battery.The Wyandotte District Court, presided over by Judge Wesley K. Griffin, sentenced Dotson to life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 25 years. Dotson appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and errors in jury instructions. He also contended that first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder are identical offenses under Kansas law.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed Dotson's convictions. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of premeditation, noting Dotson's actions before and during the struggle. The court acknowledged minor prosecutorial misstatements about premeditation but deemed them harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found no merit in Dotson's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as he failed to show that any alleged deficiencies affected the trial's outcome. Additionally, the court ruled that the jury instructions were legally sufficient and not misleading. Finally, the court rejected Dotson's identical-offense argument, reaffirming that premeditated first-degree murder and intentional second-degree murder are not identical offenses under Kansas law. View "State v. Dotson" on Justia Law

Ryan Reynolds broke into his estranged wife's house, armed with a handgun, and confined his wife, their daughter, and his wife's sister-in-law, threatening to kill them. The two women escaped with the child, and police apprehended Reynolds as he was leaving. A jury convicted him of multiple crimes, including aggravated burglary and aggravated endangering a child.The Shawnee District Court sentenced Reynolds to 180 months in prison. Reynolds appealed, challenging his convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated child endangerment. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed these convictions but reversed his criminal threat conviction. Reynolds and the State both sought further review.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with Reynolds that the district court presented the aggravated burglary charge as an alternative means crime by referring to both a building and a dwelling. However, the court rejected the automatic reversal rule from State v. Wright, which required substantial evidence for each means. Instead, the court adopted a harmless error analysis, concluding that the jury would have reached the same verdict even without the error. The court also held that the aggravated burglary instruction listing three felonies (kidnapping, aggravated assault, or criminal threat) was legally and factually appropriate.Regarding the aggravated endangering a child charge, the court found no error in the jury instruction, despite Reynolds' argument that "causing or permitting" created alternative means. The court held that the instruction was legally and factually appropriate.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Shawnee District Court on the issues subject to review. View "State v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to a series of statutes and implementing regulations ("Challenged Laws") relating to the licensure of abortion provider facilities in Kansas. The plaintiffs, an abortion care facility and its doctors, argued that the Challenged Laws infringed on a woman's fundamental right to personal autonomy, which includes the right to abortion, as protected under section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The district court agreed and issued a permanent injunction restraining the State from enforcing the Challenged Laws.The State appealed the decision, arguing that the Challenged Laws did not infringe on the right to abortion and that they survived strict scrutiny because they furthered the State's compelling interest in protecting maternal health and regulating the medical profession. The State also argued that the district court erred in striking down the Challenged Laws in their entirety, ignoring the statute's severability clause.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Challenged Laws did infringe on a woman's right to abortion and that the State failed to meet its burden to show that the laws furthered its stated compelling interests. The court also found it improper to sever the unconstitutional substantive licensure requirements from the statute. The court declined to address the equal protection issues raised by the State. View "Hodes v. Stanek" on Justia Law

The case involves Davontra Alston, who was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, felony first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle for his role in the 2020 shooting death of D'Angelo Payne in Topeka. The State's theory was that Alston conspired with Diquan Clayton, his cousin, and James Boatwright to murder Payne and that he aided and abetted Boatwright and others in the murder. The State built a circumstantial case based on evidence that Clayton and Alston resented Payne's relationship with Danielle Morrison and they felt Payne had disrespected Morrison, Alston, and his family.The district court denied Alston's motion to dismiss the murder and conspiracy convictions as multiplicitous. Alston argued his conviction for conspiracy to commit premeditated murder "covers all the conduct alleged by the State which was attributable directly to" him and his remaining three convictions should be set aside. Alston also filed a motion for a new trial, alleging several trial errors. The district court denied both motions but determined Alston's felony murder conviction merged with his first-degree premeditated murder.In the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, Alston argued that his conviction for premeditated first-degree murder under an aiding and abetting theory is duplicitous of his conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. He also contended that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial in which he argues the State mischaracterized evidence, the district court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence, and the State committed prosecutorial error. The court rejected Alston's claims and affirmed his convictions. View "State v. Alston" on Justia Law

The case involves a Kansas law, S.B. 95, which effectively bans a common method of second-trimester abortion known as Dilation and Evacuation (D & E), except when necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function. The law was challenged by doctors who perform D & E abortions in Kansas, arguing that it violates the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.The district court granted a temporary injunction, concluding that the Kansas Constitution protects a right to abortion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas. The Supreme Court affirmed the temporary injunction, ruling that the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy and that any government infringement of that right must withstand strict scrutiny. The case was remanded to the district court to apply this standard.On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the doctors, holding that the law does not withstand strict scrutiny and consequently violated the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The State appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas.The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the State failed to show that the law is narrowly tailored to further any compelling interest. The court struck down the law as an unconstitutional violation of section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. View "Hodes v. Kobach" on Justia Law

David Cornell Bennett Jr. pleaded guilty to one count of capital murder and three counts of premeditated first-degree murder in December 2017. As part of the plea agreement, Bennett waived his appellate rights. In June 2020, Bennett filed a pro se motion requesting a hearing under State v. Ortiz, alleging that his appointed counsel failed to file an appeal as requested following his sentencing hearing. The State argued that Bennett had already waived his appellate rights under the plea agreement. The district court denied Bennett's motion, finding that Bennett had knowingly waived his appellate rights.The district court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Bennett argued that his waiver of appellate rights was ambiguous and that he was entitled to a late appeal under the criteria set forth in Ortiz. The Supreme Court reviewed the facts underlying the district court's ruling for substantial competent evidence and the legal conclusion made by the district court on those facts as to whether the exception applies was reviewed de novo.The Supreme Court found that Bennett was properly informed of his rights and what he was waiving. The court noted that Bennett received the sentence contemplated in the plea agreement and filed no timely appeal. The court also found that Bennett had not explained why he should be allowed to appeal on any grounds two and a half years out of time. The court concluded that Bennett had not shown that he could qualify for a late appeal under the Ortiz criteria. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court, denying Bennett's motion for a late appeal. View "State v. Bennett" on Justia Law