Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion filed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 seeking a new trial based on allegations of ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims.Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Thereafter, Defendant brought this motion seeking a new trial based on allegations of ineffective assistance of both his trial counsel and appellate counsel. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court's findings of fact were supported by substantial competent evidence; (2) the findings of fact supported the district court's legal conclusion; and (3) Defendant received effective assistance of counsel during both his trial and during appellate proceedings. View "Khalil-Alsalaami v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for premeditated first-degree murder, along with his hard fifty sentence, holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err by telling the venire that the trial was "not a capital punishment case"; (2) the jury instruction on aiding and abetting was both legally and factually appropriate, and therefore, there was no error in submitting this instruction to the jury; (3) the prosecutor committed error in several portions of closing arguments, but the errors did not require reversal, either individually or cumulatively; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to depart from the presumptive hard fifty sentence. View "State v. Blevins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part Defendant's convictions of first-degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, abuse of a child, aggravated endangering a child, aggravated assault, and criminal damage to property, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in providing to the jury Instruction No. 15, the jury instruction on aggravated kidnapping with intent to facilitate a crime; (2) Instruction No. 9, the aiding and abetting instruction, did not misstate the law, was legally appropriate, and was constitutional; (3) Defendant's argument that his convictions for felony murder and aggravated child endangerment must be reversed because his convictions for those crimes were logically impossible was without merit; (4) Defendant's constitutional challenge to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2302(c) was without merit; (5) assuming without deciding that the prosecutor erred in saying that the victim's eyes were gone, the error was harmless; and (6) Defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5408(a)(3) is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "State v. Bodine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the ruling of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of a vehicle search conducted by the Kansas Highway Patrol, holding that the suppression motion was improperly granted.The vehicle search in this case was based on a drug dog alert that occurred following a highway patrol trooper's processing of Defendant's traffic offense. The district court concluded that the duration of Defendant's detention to await the drug dog was unlawful and excessive. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trooper acted diligently under the circumstances; and (2) the continued detention was not excessive or unlawful. View "State v. Arrizabalaga" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for sentence modification, holding that there was no procedural mechanism by which a Kansas court could reconsider Defendant's sentence.Defendant was convicted and sentenced for first-degree premeditated murder, capital murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. Defendant filed a motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), assertion that the sentencing judge engaged in judicial fact-finding to determine that aggravating factors required a minimum sentence of fifty years. The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 21-6628(c) does not create an avenue or independent means by which a convicted person can challenge his or her underlying sentence. View "State v. Trotter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's request for resentencing under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), holding that section 21-6628(c) does not create an avenue or independent means by which a convicted person can challenge his underlying sentence.Defendant was convicted of capital murder and attempted rape and sentenced to a hard fifty life sentence. As relevant to this appeal, Defendant moved to correct an illegal sentence. The district court ruled against Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for sentence modification because there was no procedural mechanism by which a Kansas court could reconsider his sentence. View "State v. Appleby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in refusing to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction; (2) the district court did not err in declining to give a voluntary intoxication jury instruction; (3) the State did not commit prosecutorial error during closing arguments; and (4) Defendant waived his additional issues that were not otherwise raised or argued in his brief. View "State v. Gallegos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for first-degree murder and vacated his sentence for the conviction but affirmed his child endangerment convictions, holding that the district court erred in refusing to give a self-defense instruction, and the error was not harmless.Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of child endangerment, theft, and possession of marijuana in connection with four separate events. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's first-degree murder conviction, holding (1) the district court erred in refusing to give a self-defense instruction because the instruction was both legally and factually appropriate, and it cannot be said that the failure to instruct on self-defense did not affect the outcome of the trial; and (2) the State provided sufficient evidence to support Defendant's child endangerment convictions. View "State v. Holley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea as untimely, holding that any error on the part of the lower courts was harmless.Defendant pled guilty to second-degree murder and abuse of a child. Defendant later filed a pro se Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion attacking his convictions and moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea as untimely. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred when it held that a showing of manifest injustice is a condition precedent to a finding of exclusable neglect; and (2) this error was harmless. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree felony murder and his hard twenty-five sentence, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the underlying crime of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle; (2) the district court properly admitted certain challenged testimony; (3) the felony-murder jury instruction was legally appropriate; and (4) because there was no error, the cumulative error doctrine did not apply to deny Defendant a fair trial. View "State v. Levy" on Justia Law