Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to modify sentence, in which he argued that his hard fifty sentence should be modified according to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), holding that the district court properly denied Defendant's motion for sentence modification but that the lifetime post release supervision shown in Defendant's journal entry of judgment must be vacated.Defendant filed a pro se motion requesting modification of his sentence on the premise that the court's sentence without benefit of a jury required resentencing pursuant to section 21-6628(c). The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence in part, holding (1) Defendant's sentence was not illegal and did not require resentencing; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to modify sentence; and (3) because Defendant's off-grid sentence was followed by parole and not postrelease supervision, the lifetime postrelease supervision shown in Defendant's journal entry of judgment must be vacated. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion to appoint counsel and, by implication, his accompanying pro se petition for DNA testing under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-2512 on the basis that his convictions had not yet become final, holding that section 21-2512 does not require that Defendant's conviction reach a state of finality on direct appeal before he may initiate proceedings under the statute.Defendant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated kidnapping and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's sentence and remanded the case. Following remand, Defendant followed a pro se petition for postconviction DNA testing, following by a motion for appointment of counsel. The district court denied the motion for appointment of counsel and did not explicitly address the petition for DNA testing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 21-2512 grants continuing jurisdiction to the court that entered the judgment to consider a petition for DNA testing at any time following conviction and to appoint counsel at any time, regardless of other ongoing appellate proceedings. View "State v. Thurber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of rape, two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, and one count of aggravated intimidation of a victim, holding that the district court did not err when it permitted the father of the victim (Father) to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.Father had previously been convicted of sexual abuse of the victim. During trial, the district court allowed Father to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and excused him from the trial. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's convictions, holding that the district court erred when it permitted Father to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege and that the error was not harmless. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not err in excluding Father's testimony as evidence. View "State v. Contreras" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, arson, and aggravated burglary, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of particular evidence at trial and no error in the denial of Defendant's request for a mental health evaluation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not improper hearsay evidence; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior misconduct on Defendant's part for the purposes of showing motive, intent, and identity; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's presentence request for a mental health evaluation. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed two of Defendant's convictions and reversed the court of appeals' decision to reverse two more of Defendant's convictions, holding that clearly erroneous jury instructions required reversal in part.Defendant was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child. Counts two and four, describing the possession of illicit materials, were charged in the alternative to counts one and three, describing "promoting any performance." The district court sentenced Defendant as an aggravated habitual sex offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole but did not impose sentence on the two counts charged in the alternative. The court of appeals reversed two of Defendant's convictions on the basis that they were charged in the alternative and determined that Defendant should have been sentenced as a persistent sex offender. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in permitting evidence of Defendant's prior convictions; and (2) asserted errors in the language of the jury instructions pertaining to Defendant's convictions in counts one and three were not harmless. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of identity theft, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish venue in Johnson County and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.A jury convicted Defendant of identity theft, and the district court sentenced her to eighteen months of probation with an underlying ten-month prison sentence. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to show venue was proper; and (2) using a person's name, address, and debit card number to defraud another person is directly addressed by the identity theft statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) venue was proper in Johnson County; and (2) Defendant was properly convicted of identity theft. View "State v. Euler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court not to order the return of restitution previously collected and distributed to Defendant's victims after the Supreme Court remanded the case upon deciding a clerical error may have led to restitution being mistakenly collected from Defendant, holding that there was no error.Defendant was serving a life sentence on felony murder when he filed the pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence at issue on this appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that a clerical error could have led to a collection agency wrongfully collected restitution during Defendant's imprisonment and remanded Defendant's motion to the district court to decide whether any clerical error required collection. The district court ordered that the error be corrected and that collection efforts cease but determined that it lacked authority to order the return of funds distributed to victims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court had authority to order third parties to return those funds. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the finding of the district court that Defendant committed a sex offense for which he had a registration obligation under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., holding that the district court's finding that Defendant committed the crimes of felony murder and aggravated kidnapping for the purpose of sexual gratification was not supported by substantial competent evidence.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was no evidence that he committed the crimes for the purpose of sexual gratification. In response, the State argued that the felony murder and aggravated kidnapping were inextricably intertwined with the sexual encounter Defendant had with the victim before he committed the crimes for which he was convicted. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant, holding that the State did not present substantial competent evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the crimes of felony murder and aggravated kidnapping for the purpose of his sexual gratification. View "State v. Rinke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to aggravated intimidation of a witness, aggravated domestic battery, and two counts of violation of a protective order, holding that the sentencing judge did not err in classifying a Missouri kidnapping conviction as a person felony.When Defendant committed the crimes at issue on appeal, the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6801 et seq., directed sentencing judges to classify an out-of-state conviction as a nonperson crime if no Kansas crime compared to the out-of-state crime. If, however, there was a comparable Kansas crime and the legislature classified it as a person crime, the sentencing judge should also classify the out-of-state conviction as a person crime. The sentencing judge in this case classified Defendant's kidnapping conviction as a person offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Missouri crime of felony first-degree kidnapping is comparable to kidnapping as defined by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5408, a person felony. View "State v. Samuels" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the portion of the judgment of the court of appeals reversing one of Defendant's two alternatively charged convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, holding that the panel overstepped its discretion by dictating that the second conviction must be reversed.The State charged Defendant with two alternative counts of fleeing or attempting to elude an officer. The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts, and Defendant was convicted accordingly. At sentencing, the State suggested that the district court could hold count two in abeyance and sentence Defendant on count one. The district court agreed. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that the district court lacked authority to enter both convictions and had no authority to hold one conviction in abeyance. The court then reversed Defendant's second conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded the case, holding that the guilty verdicts on alternative counts charging the same crime merge by operation of law to result in a single conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement. View "State v. Vargas" on Justia Law