Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's statutory default sentence of life without the possibility of parole for fifty years, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.Defendant pled guilty to first-degree premeditated murder and seven other felony offenses. The court sentenced Defendant to a hard fifty life sentence for the first-degree premeditated murder. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to depart to a hard twenty-five life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's departure motion. View "State v. Grable" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that Defendant failed to meet his burden to show that his sentences were illegal, holding that Defendant failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior convictions used to enhance his current sentence were constitutionally invalid.Defendant pled guilty to drug- and firearm-related crimes. Defendant later stipulated to several probation violations. The district court revoked Defendant's probation and imposed the underlying sentences. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in revoking his probation and imposing the underlying sentences and imposed an illegal prison sentence. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the district court had the authority to revoke Defendant's probation and impose the underlying sentences and that Defendant failed to meet his burden to show his sentences were illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's sentences were not illegal. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion.After a 1996 jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes. In 2017, Defendant brought the instant pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence under section 22-3504 failed. View "State v. Valdez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's sentence and affirming Defendant's convictions and rejecting other constitutional challenges to his sentence and restitution order, holding that the court of appeals did not err.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and eight counts of kidnapping. The district court sentenced Defendant to a presumptive 200-month term of immurement and ordered Defendant to pay restitution. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions but vacated his sentence, concluding that the district court erred in classifying Defendant's prior Michigan juvenile adjudication for armed robbery as a person felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals property affirmed the district court's order denying Defendant's Batson challenge; and (2) Defendant's constitutional challenges to his sentence and restitution order are resolved by this Court's recent opinions addressing identical claims. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals panel reversing Defendant's convictions for forgery, felony theft, and misdemeanor theft, holding that the panel erred when it decided Defendant's claims because she did not preserve them for appeal.Before the court of appeals, Defendant argued for the first time on appeal that the district court violated both her constitutional right to be present at a critical stage in the proceedings and her statutory right to a speedy trial when it granted the State's motion for a continuance. The court of appeals agreed and reversed Defendant's convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the panel erred when it decided Defendant's claims because she did not preserve them for appeal. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that substantial competent evidence did not support the district court's restitution amount in this case but reversed the court's mandate directing a second evidentiary hearing.Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property or services. The district court ordered Defendant to pay $17,279 in restitution. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that the order was not supported by substantial competent evidence and vacated the order. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision to vacate the restitution order and remand the case to the district court but reversed its mandate directing a second evidentiary hearing, holding that, on remand, the district court is to impose a new restitution order that is supported by substantial competent evidence from the existing record. View "State v. Dailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment denying as untimely Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, holding that the district court correctly determined that Defendant did not demonstrate excusable neglect.Defendant pled no contest to capital murder and was convicted of first-degree and second-degree murder. Approximately four and a half years after being sentenced, Defendant moved to withdraw his no contest plea. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant had failed to show the required excusable neglect to extend the one-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show excusable neglect, as required by Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(e)(2). View "State v. Ellington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the district court convicting Defendant of battery of a law enforcement officer and ordering Defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $2,649 to reimburse the workers compensation insurance carrier that paid the officer's medical bills arising out of the battery, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) criminal restitution does not violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) the current structure of criminal restitution violates section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights but is remedied by severance. With today's holding, restitution may still be imposed by a judge either as part of the sentence, as contemplated by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6604(b), or as a condition of probation, as contemplated by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6607(c)(2). View "State v. Robison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and restitution order, holding that any error did not require reversal of the convictions.Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and aggravated burglary. The district judge sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence plus forty-three months and ordered him to pay $7,470 in restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district judge did not abuse its discretion in admitting two sets of statements; (2) the judge did not commit reversible error by twice denying Defendant's requests for a mistrial; (3) the aggravated burglary instruction was not clearly erroneous; (4) the prosecutor committed harmless error during closing arguments; (5) the cumulative effect of any errors did not deny Defendant a fair trial; and (6) Defendant's original restitution judgment was constitutionally firm. View "State v. Owens" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the restitution ordered against Petitioner by the district court, holding that the restitution did not violate Petitioner's right to a jury under both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit burglary for providing the car which her boyfriend used to burglarize two houses. The boyfriend paid Defendant $200 when he returned the car. The district court ordered that Defendant and her codefendants pay the full amount of the State's requested restitution, $33,249, jointly and severally. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) criminal restitution does not violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) the current structure of criminal restitution violates section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights but is remedied by severance. View "State v. Arnett" on Justia Law