Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Dyron King’s convictions of attempted capital murder, aggravated robbery, and other crimes, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury verdict and there was no discernible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) sufficient evidence supported King’s convictions; (2) there were three instances of prosecutorial error in closing arguments, but there was no reasonable possibility the prosecutor’s comments contributed to the verdict; (3) King waived any request to sever his trial from his codefendant’s; and (4) cumulative error did not deprive King of a fair trial. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed and applied the holding in State v. Perkins, 811 P.2d 1142 (Kan. 1991), which held that Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3302 does not mandate that a defendant be present when the discussion concerns whether to hold a competency hearing.During the first day of Defendant’s trial, his attorney spoke with the trial judge and the prosecutor about the attorney’s concerns regarding Defendant’s mental state. Defendant’s attorney did not explicitly ask for a competency examination or a competency hearing. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated section 22-3302 by holding a chambers conference to discuss concerns about his mental state. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the holding in Perkins applies in this case; and (2) the ambiguous language of section 22-3302(7) does not support Defendant’s interpretation that he had a right to be present during the in-chambers discussion about his mental state on the first day of trial. View "State v. Gross" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was Husband’s challenge to a 1994 divorce decree that divided Husband’s military retirement benefits as marital property.In 2013, Husband filed a motion to set aside the portion of the 1994 divorce decree awarding Wife a share of his military retirement, arguing that the judgment was void because the district court lacked jurisdiction to divide his military retirement benefits pursuant to the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. 1408 et seq. The district court judge rejected Husband’s jurisdictional argument and awarded Wife her attorney fees. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the USFSPA imposes limitations on a Kansas court’s personal jurisdiction and does not impact the underlying subject-matter jurisdiction granted by the Kansas Constitution and Kansas statutes; (2) the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this case in 1994; (3) the court had personal jurisdiction over Husband in 1994 based on implied consent; and (4) the district court had authority to award attorney fees. View "In re Marriage of Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of a Court of Appeals panel suppressing evidence obtained through a suspicionless search of the residence of Appellant, a parolee, holding that the suspicionless search of Appellant’s residence did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The trial court held that the parole officer in this case lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search Appellant’s home but that the Internal Management Policies and Procedures of the Kansas Department of Corrections authorized such parole conditions and were not in violation of Kansas law. The majority of the Court of Appeals panel reversed, holding that the condition in Appellant’s signed parole agreement allowing the residential search was not authorized by Kansas law, as required by State v. Bennett, 200 P.3d 455 (Kan. 2009). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the signed parole agreement stating that Appellant was subject to suspicionless residential searches by his parole officers as a condition of his parole was enough to uphold the parole officer’s suspicionless search. View "State v. Toliver" on Justia Law

In this appeal, Grandmother failed to meet her burden of establishing that she was an interested party in a stepparent adoption proceeding relating to her grandson.The district court concluded that neither the law nor other circumstances conferred standing upon Grandmother to participate in the stepparent adoption because she was not an interested party. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the merits of Grandmother’s claim that she was a parent by virtue of certain agreements and court orders entered in a separate grandparent visitation case, holding that Grandmother failed to establish that she was an interested party under the Kansas Adoption and Relinquishment Act and the Probate Code. View "In re Adoption of T.M.M.H." on Justia Law

In this appeal, Grandmother failed to meet her burden of establishing that she was an interested party in a stepparent adoption proceeding relating to her grandson.The district court concluded that neither the law nor other circumstances conferred standing upon Grandmother to participate in the stepparent adoption because she was not an interested party. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the merits of Grandmother’s claim that she was a parent by virtue of certain agreements and court orders entered in a separate grandparent visitation case, holding that Grandmother failed to establish that she was an interested party under the Kansas Adoption and Relinquishment Act and the Probate Code. View "In re Adoption of T.M.M.H." on Justia Law

The district court erred by sentencing Defendant to lifetime postrelease supervision instead of lifetime parole for his first-degree felony-murder conviction.Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty years for the first-degree felony murder and imposed lifetime postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated a portion of Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s challenges to his convictions were unavailing; and (2) the sentencing court erred when it imposed lifetime postrelease supervision rather than lifetime parole. The Court remanded the case to the district court so the court may impose lifetime parole. View "State v. Butler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the district court and court of appeals ruling that a search of Defendant’s van, which resulted in the discovery of drugs and a meth pipe, was not in violation of Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, the Court held that the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress because assuming, without deciding, that the initial encounter became an investigatory detention, it was supported by reasonable suspicion and was therefore legal, and Defendant’s consent to the search during that time was not tainted. View "State v. Hanke" on Justia Law

In deciding whether a plan of restitution is unworkable, courts should evaluate unworkability on a case-by-case basis.The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming Appellant’s order of restitution, holding that the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that the restitution plan was a workable one. Here, the district court ordered that, upon Appellant’s release from prison, he pay $14,356.21 in restitution pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6604(b)(1). On appeal, Appellant argued that, as a result of his limited financial resources, he would not be able to pay off the order in a reasonable time frame and that the plan of restitution was unworkable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that Appellant failed to show the restitution plan was unworkable. View "State v. Meeks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order that Appellant comply with the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., holding that the court made the requisite finding on the record that a deadly weapon was used in Appellant’s commission of the person felony for which he was convicted, and the court’s failure to inform Appellant about his registration obligations at the time of conviction was error, but the error was harmless.Appellant pleaded no contest to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. When convicted, Appellant was not informed of his duty to register. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based on Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3602(a), this Court had jurisdiction to decide if Appellant’s registration responsibilities were invalid because Appellant was not challenging his conviction on appeal; (2) because Appellant was convicted of a person felony and the court found he used a deadly weapon, which was supported by the record, Appellant was a violent offender subject to KORA’s registration requirements; and (3) the court’s failure to notify Appellant of his duty to register at the time of his conviction did not excuse Appellant’s KORA registration obligations. View "State v. Marinelli" on Justia Law