Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of battery and other offenses, holding that the trial court committed structural error in handling Defendant’s invocation of his right to self-representation.At a motions hearing before Defendant’s trial was to begin, Defendant interjected during argument before the court and stated that he wanted it on the record that he was “unequivocally” asserting his right to self-representation. The judge refused to take up the matter of self-representation, telling Defendant that he must file a written motion if he wanted to represent himself. Defendant did not file the motion or otherwise reassert the right to self-representation when court reconvened. The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, rejecting Defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to self-representation. The Supreme Court concluded that Defendant was denied his right to self-representation and that the error was structural. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Bunyard" on Justia Law

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s postsentencing motion to withdraw pleas.Defendant pleaded guilty and no contest to drug charges in two separate cases. The district court sentenced Defendant in both cases to a total of 178 months in prison and ordered him to register as a drug offender. Defendant later moved to withdraw his pleas. The court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that his pleas were not understandingly made, that he was misled into believing the State would not oppose probation, and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s pleas were understandingly made; (2) Defendant was not misled into believing the State would not oppose probation; and (3) Defendant’s attorney was not ineffective. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s postsentencing motion to withdraw pleas.Defendant pleaded guilty and no contest to drug charges in two separate cases. The district court sentenced Defendant in both cases to a total of 178 months in prison and ordered him to register as a drug offender. Defendant later moved to withdraw his pleas. The court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that his pleas were not understandingly made, that he was misled into believing the State would not oppose probation, and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s pleas were understandingly made; (2) Defendant was not misled into believing the State would not oppose probation; and (3) Defendant’s attorney was not ineffective. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court convicting Defendant of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and sentencing him to a total prison term of sixty-one months and requiring Defendant to register as a sex offender for the remainder of his life pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). The court held (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for a dispositional departure to probation; and (2) Defendant’s lifetime registration requirement did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "State v. Ibarra" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court convicting Defendant of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and sentencing him to a total prison term of sixty-one months and requiring Defendant to register as a sex offender for the remainder of his life pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). The court held (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for a dispositional departure to probation; and (2) Defendant’s lifetime registration requirement did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "State v. Ibarra" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder, holding that Defendant’s right to be present at a continuance hearing did not cause reversible harm and that none of Defendant’s other challenges required reversal.The Supreme Court previously issued a decision in this case remanding for an evidentiary hearing to establish a record on whether Defendant’s right to be present at the continuance hearing was harmless error. Having evaluated the results of the hearing, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no reversible error resulting from the violation of Defendant’s right to be present; (2) there was no reversible error from any related allegation of error based on Defendant’s lawyer’s failure to argue a violation of the speedy trial statute; (3) there was no reversible error from the prosecution’s failure to bring Defendant to trial within ninety days of his arraignment; and (4) Defendant’s remaining appellate challenges to his convictions were unavailing and did not require reversal. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder, holding that Defendant’s right to be present at a continuance hearing did not cause reversible harm and that none of Defendant’s other challenges required reversal.The Supreme Court previously issued a decision in this case remanding for an evidentiary hearing to establish a record on whether Defendant’s right to be present at the continuance hearing was harmless error. Having evaluated the results of the hearing, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no reversible error resulting from the violation of Defendant’s right to be present; (2) there was no reversible error from any related allegation of error based on Defendant’s lawyer’s failure to argue a violation of the speedy trial statute; (3) there was no reversible error from the prosecution’s failure to bring Defendant to trial within ninety days of his arraignment; and (4) Defendant’s remaining appellate challenges to his convictions were unavailing and did not require reversal. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals disposing of Defendant’s appeal exclusively on the ground that Defendant’s constitutional claim was not preserved for appeal.Defendant pled no contest to attempted kidnapping and domestic battery. Defendant was required to register as a violent offender for life pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). During the lower court proceedings, Defendant acknowledged that registration “is not considered punishment.” On appeal, Defendant argued, for the first time, that retroactive application of KORA’s lifetime registration violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the merits of Defendant’s claims, concluding that Defendant invited error regarding his ex post facto claim when he conceded that registration was not punishment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s claim was not preserved for appeal. View "State v. Daniel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals disposing of Defendant’s appeal exclusively on the ground that Defendant’s constitutional claim was not preserved for appeal.Defendant pled no contest to attempted kidnapping and domestic battery. Defendant was required to register as a violent offender for life pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). During the lower court proceedings, Defendant acknowledged that registration “is not considered punishment.” On appeal, Defendant argued, for the first time, that retroactive application of KORA’s lifetime registration violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the merits of Defendant’s claims, concluding that Defendant invited error regarding his ex post facto claim when he conceded that registration was not punishment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s claim was not preserved for appeal. View "State v. Daniel" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for capital murder and his sentence of death. The court held (1) the State did not commit prosecutorial error by objecting during Defendant’s closing argument; (2) the district court judge engaged in one incident of judicial misconduct, but the error did not require reversal; (3) the district judge erred in refusing to give a requested expert witness instruction, but the error was harmless; (4) Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3220 did not unconstitutionally abrogate Kansas’ former insanity defense; (5) the district judge did not err in failing to give a lesser included instruction on felony murder; (6) the district judge did not prohibit defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors during voir dire about their views on the death penalty; (7) the cumulative effect of trial errors did not deny Defendant a fair trial; (8) the Kansas death penalty is not a categorically disproportionate punishment for offenders who are “severely mentally ill” at the time they commit their crimes; (9) the aggravating factors supporting the death penalty are not unconstitutionally vague or duplicative; and (10) sufficient evidence supported the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance. View "State v. Kahler" on Justia Law