Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2000, Defendant pled guilty to felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. In 2011, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(d). The district court dismissed the motion without considering the merits due to Defendant’s late filing and his failure to show excusable neglect. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Defendant did not establish excusable neglect for the untimely filing of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and by dismissing Defendant’s motion as untimely without considering its merits. View "State v. Davisson" on Justia Law

In 2000, Defendant pled guilty to felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. In 2011, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(d). The district court dismissed the motion without considering the merits due to Defendant’s late filing and his failure to show excusable neglect. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Defendant did not establish excusable neglect for the untimely filing of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and by dismissing Defendant’s motion as untimely without considering its merits. View "State v. Davisson" on Justia Law

Defendant, along with her codefendant husband, entered a no contest plea to one count of unlawful distribution of a drug precursor and one count of unlawful possession of a drug precursor. Defense counsel did not file a timely direct appeal. After successfully seeking a sentence reduction under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507, Defendant appealed. The court of appeals remanded to the district court for a hearing under State v. Ortiz, which permits untimely appeals when one of three exceptions applies. The district judge ruled that none of the Ortiz exceptions applied. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the third Ortiz exception applied to Defendant’s case because she was furnished an attorney for appeal who failed to perfect or complete the appeal. The court further ruled in Defendant’s favor on the merits of her challenge to her sentence for unlawful distribution of a drug precursor. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals’ decision on the Ortiz issue; and (2) did not reach the issue of whether the identical offense doctrine should be applied to reduce Defendant’s sentence for unlawful distribution of a drug precursor because the State did not contest the court’s ruling on the merits of the doctrine. View "State v. Perry" on Justia Law

Defendant, along with his codefendant wife, entered a no contest plea to unlawful distribution of a drug precursor and unlawful possession of a drug precursor. Defense counsel did not file a timely direct appeal. After successfully seeking a sentence reduction under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507, Defendant appealed. The court of appeals remanded to the district court for a hearing under State v. Ortiz, which permits untimely appeals when one of three exceptions applies. The district court concluded that none of the Ortiz exceptions applied in Defendant’s case, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the third Ortiz exception applied to Defendant’s case because he was furnished an attorney for appeal who failed to perfect or complete the appeal. Remanded. View "State v. Shelly" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant in two separate cases for conduct occurring in April 2010. In the first case, Defendant was found guilty of three of four charged offenses after a bench trial on stipulated facts, which included a police report filed after Defendant was arrested. In the second case, Defendant moved to dismiss the charges under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3108(2)(a), the compulsory joinder rule, because of the admission of the police report into evidence in the trial of the first case. After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of felony theft by deception. The court of appeals affirmed the district judge’s refusal to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to claim the protection of the compulsory joinder rule in section 21-3108(2)(a). View "State v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of fifteen years to life on each charge of rape, to run consecutively, and to five to twenty years on the charge of attempted rape, to run concurrently. Twenty-six years after sentencing, Appellant filed a motion to correct journal entry. The district court treated the motion as one to correct illegal sentence and summarily denied it, concluding that Appellant’s sentence was legal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court followed the proper procedure in denying Appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that Appellant’s sentence was legal. View "State v. Gray" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. The sentencing judge imposed a hard fifty life sentence upon finding that two aggravating factors existed. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence. After the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alleyne v. United States, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504(1), arguing that the procedures used to impose her hard fifty life sentence were unconstitutional. The district judge denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant employed the wrong procedural vehicle to advance her constitutional challenge. View "State v. Warrior" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two alternative counts of first-degree felony murder, attempt to commit aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and other criminal offenses. The district judge imposed a hard twenty life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction, a consecutive sixty-month sentence for the aggravated burglary conviction, and concurrent sentences for the remaining three convictions. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for attempted aggravated robbery and felony murder and that the district court judge imposed an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, holding (1) the State produced sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions for attempted aggravated robbery and felony murder; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was not illegal. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

More than a dozen years after Appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and the underlying felony of manufacture of methamphetamine, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because the court failed to provide lesser included offense instructions for felony murder and because the charging document was fatally defective. The district court summarily denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither of Appellant’s claims was properly raised through a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and even if the Court were to construe Appellant’s motion as a motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507, it was untimely. View "State v. LaMae" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested under suspicion of driving while under the influence and taken to a law enforcement center. Defendant refused to provide a breath sample for testing, so a law enforcement officer applied for and received a warrant to search Defendant’s blood. Defendant was subsequently charged with refusing to submit to testing under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1025, among other offenses. Defendant appealed, challenging the constitutionality of section 8-1025. The district court dismissed the charge against Defendant that alleged a violation of section 8-1025, finding that the statute violated Defendant’s due process rights and violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the holdings in State v. Ryce, which stated that section 8-1025 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is facially unconstitutional, are equally applicable to Defendant and resolve his case. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law