Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and six additional offenses arising from a 1994 nightclub shooting. The jury recommended a hard forty sentence for one of the first-degree murders and a hard fifteen life sentence for the other murder. The trial court imposed the recommended sentences to run consecutively. In 1994, Defendant filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the hard forty sentence must be vacated because the State did not provide the proper notice of its intent to seek that penalty. The district court denied the motion after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying relief. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions of battery against a law enforcement officer and intentional criminal threat, holding that the cumulative effect of five errors in Defendant's trial affected the trial's outcome.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana, battery against a law enforcement officer, and intentional criminal threat. The court of appeals reversed the marijuana conviction and ordered a new trial on the marijuana charge and identified four other trial errors related to Defendant's remaining convictions but determined that, individually and collectively, they were harmless. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reversed Defendant's two remaining convictions, holding that the cumulative effect of five errors made during trial affected the trial's outcome. The Court remanded the case for a new trial. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of two counts of rape of a child under fourteen years of age, holding that Defendant's counsel was ineffective.A jury convicted Defendant of two counts of rape of a child under fourteen years of age for her actions as a middle school counselor in allegedly engaging in sex acts with a student. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' holding that Defendant's intent was irrelevant in this case and remanded the case to the district court for a Van Cleave hearing. The district court concluded that trial counsel had not been ineffective. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the absence of an instruction permitting the jury to apply Defendant's defense was prejudicial; and (2) there is no mental culpability requirement for rape of a child under fourteen. View "State v. Dinkel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, holding that the district court correctly construed Defendant's motion as a motion to correct illegal sentence under section 22-3504.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for forty years. In her motion to correct illegal sentence, Defendant argued that her hard forty sentence was illegal because it did not conform to certain statutory requirements. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial and asserting that the district court should have construed her motion as a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) summarily denying Defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence; and (2) construing Defendant's motion as a motion to correct illegal sentence. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals finding that lifetime registration requirements under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4906(c), were not punishment as applied N.R. and therefore did not trigger any constitutional provisions identified by N.R., holding that there was no error.N.R. pled guilty to rape and was adjudicated a juvenile offender. The gestate judge ordered N.R. to register as a sex offender for five years under KORA. Just before N.R.'s registration period was about to expire, the legislature amended KORA. As a result, N.R. was required to register for life. Later, the State charged N.R. for failing to register. N.R. filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that KORA's mandatory lifetime registration requirements for juvenile sex offenders violates the federal and state constitutional provisions against cruel and unusual punishment and the federal constitutional provision against ex post facto punishment. The district court found Defendant guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that KORA's mandatory lifetime registration requirements as applied to N.R. are not punishment and therefore do not violate the federal Ex Post Facto Clause or the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Kansas and United States Constitutions. View "State v. N.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of aggravated criminal sodomy and the requirement that he register as a sex offender for life under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4906(c), holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that retroactive application of KORA violates the federal constitutional prohibition against ex post facto punishment, constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and infringed on his right to due process. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's due process and cruel and unusual punishment arguments were waived and abandoned; and (2) KORA registration requirements are not punitive in purpose or effect, and therefore, retroactive application of KORA provisions to Defendant did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. View "State v. Davidson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm, and criminal possession of a firearm and sentencing him to a hard twenty-five life sentence consecutive to 216 months' imprisonment, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no violation of Defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial; (2) there was no violation of Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for felony murder and criminal discharge of a firearm. View "State v. Shockley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence for aggravated domestic battery, holding that the district court's reason for departing from the presumptive sentence established by the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) was legally insufficient.Defendant pled guilty to aggravated domestic battery and moved for a downward departure sentence. The district court imposed twenty-four months' probation with an underlying sentence of thirty-one months. On appeal, the court of appeals vacated the sentence, holding that the district court's reason for departing was legally insufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentencing court relied on an improper nonstatutory mitigating factor. View "State v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., applied to Defendant's municipal court conviction for sexual battery, holding that KORA required Defendant to register.A Shawnee Municipal Court judge convicted Defendant of sexual battery. The district court held a trial de novo and found Defendant guilty on the sexual battery charge. The court further advised Defendant that he must register as a sex offender. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that because KORA does not explicitly declare that it applies to municipal ordinance violations, he should not be required to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2102 does not render KORA inapplicable to municipal court proceedings. View "City of Shawnee v. Adem" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling, and criminal discharge at an occupied vehicle, holding that Defendant failed to establish error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred by not giving his requested and legally correct language to a pattern jury instruction. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that, even without the language requested by Defendant, the jury instructions properly and fairly stated the applicable law and did not mislead the jury. View "State v. Wimbley" on Justia Law