Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Sharmarke Warsame was convicted of two felony counts of identity theft, two misdemeanor counts of theft, and one misdemeanor count of criminal use of a financial card for using stolen credit cards to purchase Target gift cards. The convictions were vacated on direct appeal, and the State dismissed the felony charges after remand. Warsame served 564 days in prison for the vacated and dismissed felony convictions. He then filed a statutory action for wrongful conviction and imprisonment seeking damages, attorney fees, costs, a certificate of innocence, and expungement of all associated convictions.The Johnson District Court denied the State's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that it needed to hear testimony and make findings concerning the alleged facts under which Warsame was convicted. A bench trial followed, and the district court ultimately ruled against Warsame, holding that he had failed to prove his actual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence.Warsame appealed directly to the Kansas Supreme Court, arguing that the district court incorrectly concluded that he committed felony identity theft against the alleged victims as charged and instructed to the jury. The State cross-appealed the denial of summary judgment, arguing that the actual innocence required under the wrongful conviction statute concerns the statutory elements of the charged crime, not the specific facts alleged in the filings or trial.The Kansas Supreme Court agreed with the State, holding that the crime of conviction is defined by statute and is not limited to the specific facts of the charging document. To receive compensation, Warsame was required to prove actual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence under the statutory elements of the charged crime. Warsame failed to meet this burden, as he admitted facts sufficient to prove he intended to defraud some party to receive a benefit. The court affirmed the denial of Warsame's claim. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Warsame " on Justia Law

In 2016, Robert Edward Smith was involved in a home invasion that resulted in the murder of Donna O'Neal. Smith was charged with first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. The case was delayed due to extensive pretrial litigation and the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a mistrial in July 2021. Smith's retrial began in May 2023, where he was ultimately convicted on all charges.The Sedgwick District Court initially handled the case, where Smith raised several issues, including a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, prosecutorial error, and the right to present a defense. The district court denied Smith's motions, including his motion to dismiss based on the speedy trial claim and his objections to the State's mid-trial amendment of the information.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and addressed multiple issues. The court found that the 21.5-month delay between Smith's mistrial and retrial did not violate his right to a speedy trial, considering the complexity of the case and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also found no prosecutorial error in the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments and no violation of Smith's right to present a defense regarding the exclusion of third-party evidence and a probation violation warrant.However, the court agreed with Smith that the district court erred in including his 2003 criminal threat conviction in his criminal history score, as the statute under which he was convicted had been declared unconstitutional in State v. Boettger. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Smith's convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without including the 2003 conviction in his criminal history score. View "State v. Smith " on Justia Law

Christopher Adams faced multiple counts of battery for allegedly assaulting two men and his girlfriend, Stephanie Lang, outside a bar. Lang initially identified Adams as the attacker but later claimed she did not remember the incident during a preliminary hearing. Due to her inconsistent statements, the State charged Lang with perjury and interference with law enforcement and warned her of additional perjury charges if she testified similarly at Adams' trial. Lang invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, citing the risk of incrimination in her pending perjury case and potential new perjury charges.The Ellis District Court ruled that Lang could invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege despite the State offering her use and derivative use immunity, which would make her trial testimony and any evidence derived from it inadmissible in her pending perjury case. The court found that the immunity did not protect her from a new perjury charge. A majority panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the immunity was insufficient to protect Lang's Fifth Amendment rights due to the imminent risk of a perjury charge. Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger dissented, arguing that the threat of a future perjury charge cannot be the basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The court held that Lang's Fifth Amendment privilege was extinguished by the State's grant of use and derivative use immunity, which is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment protection. The court further held that the risk of a future perjury charge is not a valid basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege. The case was remanded to the district court with directions to compel Lang's testimony under the State's grant of immunity. View "State v. Adams " on Justia Law

Robert Lee Harris Jr. was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder of his wife. On appeal, Harris challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his locked cell phones. He argued that law enforcement obtained the passcodes to unlock the phones in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.The Johnson District Court found that Harris voluntarily disclosed the passcodes, knowing the incriminating information they might yield. The court concluded that the initial Miranda warning given to Harris was still effective, and his prior Miranda waiver had not expired when the detective asked him to provide the passcodes. The court also found that the detective's statement about obtaining a court order to compel fingerprint access or the passcodes was not inherently coercive, as the detective had a reasonable basis to believe a court would issue such an order.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that substantial competent evidence supported the district court's finding that Harris' disclosure of the passcodes was voluntary and not obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The court concluded that the initial Miranda warning and Harris' waiver were still valid at the time of the second interrogation, so a renewed Miranda warning was not necessary. Additionally, the court found that the detective's statement about obtaining a court order was not inherently coercive and that Harris provided the passcodes voluntarily, considering the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Harris' motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the cell phones. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

The case involves Patricio Sabas Gomez, who was convicted of first-degree felony murder, attempted distribution of methamphetamine, and criminal possession of a weapon. The incident occurred on September 30, 2021, when Danielle Hampton called 911 to report that her boyfriend, Michael Martinez, had been shot at a hotel in Wichita. Martinez was found dead with gunshot wounds, and methamphetamine was discovered in the room. Gomez and Shae Roberts were implicated in a drug deal gone wrong, leading to Martinez's death. Gomez was charged with felony murder, attempted distribution of methamphetamine, attempted aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon.The Sedgwick District Court found Gomez guilty of first-degree felony murder and attempted distribution of methamphetamine but acquitted him of attempted aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 620 months, concurrent with a 78-month term for attempted distribution of methamphetamine and an 8-month term for criminal possession of a weapon. Gomez appealed his convictions, arguing insufficient evidence for the felony-murder conviction and the attempted distribution of methamphetamine, and claimed his sentence for the latter was illegal.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case, affirming Gomez's convictions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the felony-murder conviction based on attempted distribution of methamphetamine and attempted aggravated robbery. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for attempted distribution of methamphetamine. However, the court agreed that the 78-month sentence for attempted distribution of methamphetamine was illegal, as it exceeded the statutory maximum. Consequently, the court vacated that portion of Gomez's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "State v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Brenton S. Cook fired three shots and killed Dean Endsley in Endsley's Salina residence while attempting to collect on a drug debt. A jury convicted Cook of premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and criminal possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Cook to a hard 25 life sentence for premeditated first-degree murder, plus 60 months on the remaining counts. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal.Cook later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his convictions were multiplicitous and violated the double jeopardy clause because insufficient time passed for him to form the required mental state to premeditate murder. He requested a new trial or resentencing. The State responded that Cook's arguments focused on his convictions rather than his sentences and that he failed to address the statutory definition of an illegal sentence. The Saline District Court agreed with the State, noting that Cook did not challenge the legality of his sentence under the statutory definition and characterized his motion as complaining of trial errors that should have been asserted in his direct appeal. The district court also concluded that Cook's claims were barred under res judicata principles.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The court found that Cook's arguments did not suggest his sentences fell under the statutory definition of an illegal sentence. Cook did not argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that the sentence was ambiguous, or that it did not conform to the applicable statutory provisions defining the crime, assigning the punishment, or involving the criminal history classification. The court concluded that Cook's motion did not properly invoke an applicable statutory provision that might afford him relief under the illegal sentence statute, K.S.A. 22-3504. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Cook's motion. View "State v. Cook" on Justia Law

The case involves Francisco Alejandro Mendez, who was charged with multiple crimes following a crime spree in Topeka, Kansas, in April 2019. Mendez and his accomplices stole a car at gunpoint, shot at a group of Washburn University students, killing one, and robbed several people at gunpoint. Mendez was convicted by a jury of premeditated first-degree murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and aggravated robbery.The Shawnee District Court sentenced Mendez to a life sentence plus 492 months in prison. Mendez appealed, raising nine claims of error, including insufficient evidence of premeditation, erroneous jury instructions, unconstitutional vagueness of the premeditated murder statute, insufficient evidence for some aggravated robbery convictions, multiplicity of charges, denial of a motion to suppress, prosecutorial error, erroneous jury instructions on "knowingly," and cumulative error.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. It found sufficient evidence to support the premeditation finding, noting that the time between the initial encounter and the shooting was enough for Mendez to form premeditation. The court also found that the aiding and abetting instruction, while legally inappropriate, was not clearly erroneous. The court declined to address the constitutionality of the premeditated murder statute as it was not raised in the lower court.The court reversed three of Mendez's aggravated robbery convictions due to insufficient evidence, as there was no proof that property was taken from those victims. However, it upheld the conviction for the aggravated robbery of Clark, finding that as a passenger, he had possession and control of the car. The court also found that the traffic stop leading to Mendez's arrest was lawful and that the prosecutorial error in stating premeditation could be formed in one second was harmless. The court concluded that the cumulative error doctrine did not apply as only one error was identified.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Mendez's convictions for premeditated first-degree murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and the remaining aggravated robbery convictions, while reversing three aggravated robbery convictions. View "State v. Mendez" on Justia Law

In 2004, Jason Mashaney was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child, involving his then-five-year-old daughter. He was sentenced to 442 months in prison. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. In 2008, Mashaney filed a motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, which led to a reversal and remand for a full evidentiary hearing. The district court found substantial prejudice from ineffective representation, vacated the 2004 convictions, and scheduled a new trial. Subsequently, Mashaney entered an Alford plea to amended charges of attempted aggravated battery and aggravated endangerment of a child, resulting in a 72-month sentence and his release for time served.The Sedgwick District Court awarded Mashaney nearly $414,595 in damages for wrongful conviction and imprisonment under K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004. The court concluded that the original charges were "effectively dismissed" when the State amended them to nonsexual charges involving the same victim. The district court found that Mashaney met the statutory elements for compensation, including that his judgment of conviction was vacated and the charges were dismissed. The court calculated the damages based on the duration of wrongful imprisonment and reduced the award by the amount received from a legal malpractice settlement.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the phrase "the charges were dismissed" in K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(B) means both terminating the criminal accusation and relieving the defendant of criminal liability. The court found that the original charges against Mashaney were not dismissed but amended, and he incurred criminal liability for the amended charges. Therefore, Mashaney did not meet the statutory requirement that the charges were dismissed, and his claim for wrongful conviction and imprisonment failed. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Mashaney" on Justia Law

James A. Willis was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm. The incident occurred outside a nightclub in Overland Park, where Willis shot Jurl Carter multiple times as Carter was backing his car out of a parking lot. The chaotic scene involved numerous witnesses, some of whom provided inconsistent accounts. However, surveillance footage and witness testimonies generally supported the prosecution's narrative. Willis admitted to shooting Carter but claimed he acted in self-defense.The Johnson District Court, presided over by Judge Thomas Kelly Ryan, found Willis guilty on both counts. Willis was sentenced to a hard 50 life sentence for the murder conviction and an additional 19 months for the firearm conviction. Willis appealed, arguing prosecutorial misconduct and instructional errors, particularly regarding his self-defense claim.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Willis contended that the prosecutor improperly inferred motivations not supported by evidence and misstated the law on self-defense. The court found that the prosecutor's inferences about the culture of respect and retaliation were reasonable and within the wide latitude allowed. Additionally, the court determined that the prosecutor's statements about self-defense, when viewed in context, did not mislead the jury.Willis also argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The Kansas Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that such instructions would have been appropriate. However, the court concluded that the jury would not have reached a different verdict even if those instructions had been given.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Willis's convictions, finding no reversible error in the prosecutorial conduct or the jury instructions. View "State v. Willis" on Justia Law

In 2016, Louis Scherzer was fatally shot outside a bar in Kansas City, Kansas. Filiberto B. Espinoza Jr. was linked to the shooting and charged with first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. Espinoza admitted to the shooting but claimed self-defense, stating he shot Scherzer when he saw him pulling a firearm. In September 2017, Espinoza pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder and received a mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole for 25 years. His sentence was affirmed on appeal in April 2020.Espinoza filed a motion to withdraw his plea on January 5, 2021, which the district court did not rule on before he filed a second motion on November 21, 2023. The district court summarily dismissed both motions on December 20, 2023, noting the 2021 motion was timely but failed to establish manifest injustice, and the 2023 motion was untimely and lacked excusable neglect. Espinoza appealed the denial of both motions.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Espinoza's 2023 motion was untimely and did not demonstrate excusable neglect. The court noted that Espinoza was aware of the video footage and toxicology report during the trial, and his claims of ignorance did not constitute excusable neglect. Additionally, the court found no error in the district court's summary denial of the 2021 motion, as the record showed Espinoza was fully informed of his plea's consequences, and his allegations were conclusory without raising substantial issues of fact.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary denial of both motions to withdraw Espinoza's plea. View "State v. Espinoza" on Justia Law