Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's motion for leave to appeal out of time, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's motion under the exceptions set forth in State v. Ortiz, 640 P.2d 1255 (1982).This was the third of Appellant's appeals from the district court's decision denying his motion for leave to appeal out of time. Twice before, the Supreme Court considered Appellant's case and reversed the district court's decision and remanded the matter. In this appeal, Appellant argued that he was entitled to file an untimely appeal under the first and third Ortiz exceptions. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling denying Appellant's motion, holding that the district court correctly denied Appellant's motion to appeal out of time. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary dismissal of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err.Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. Upon sentencing, the sentencing judge granted the State's request for an upward departure without the use of a jury. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal, and the mandate issued on January 9, 1996. In his latest postconviction motion, Defendant argued that his upward departure sentence violated his due process rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and State v. Gould, 23 P.3d 801 (2001). The district court summarily dismissed Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that several factors precluded Defendant from pursuing relief through a motion for illegal sentence, including the fact that a motion for illegal sentence cannot serve as a vehicle for raising constitutional claims such as Defendant's Apprendi claim. View "State v. Hayes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Richard Quillen's petition to be placed in transitional release from his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (KSVPA), holding that the jury instructions given at Quillen's transitional release hearing were constitutionally adequate.After a jury trial, the court found that Quillen's mental abnormality or personality disorder remainder such that he was not safe to be placed in transitional release. On appeal, Quillen argued that the district court erred when it denied his request for an instruction that the jury must find Quillen had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) at a transitional release hearing, substantive due process requirements are satisfied when the jury instructions as a whole require the jury to necessarily and implicitly find the respondent continues to have serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior; and (2) the jury instructions in Quillen's case were constitutionally adequate under this standard. View "In re Care & Treatment of Quillen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court reversing Defendant's conviction of aggravated battery, rape, and aggravated kidnapping on the grounds that a conflict of interest existed between Defendant and his counsel that adversely affected the representation.In his Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion for relief from his convictions Defendant argued that his counsel had a personal and financial conflict of interest that adversely affected his performance in Defendant's case. The district court agreed and set aside Defendant's convictions without determining whether prejudice resulted from the conflict of interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's convictions must be reversed based on the financial conflict of interest of his trial counsel. View "Ellie v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for possession of marijuana, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia, holding that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that a syringe was found by police during a search that violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights but that the error was harmless.On appeal, the State conceded that the district court should have granted Defendant's motion to suppress on the syringe, admitting that the search incident to arrest exception for a warrantless search did not apply to this particular search. The court of appeals affirmed, accepting the State's concession that the syringe discovery was the product of an illegal search but without determining whether the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the court's admission of the syringe evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Thornton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon but vacated the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision as part of Defendant's sentence, holding that this portion of the sentence was erroneous.A jury convicted Defendant of both premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced him to a hard fifty life sentence for the murder and lifetime postrelease supervision for that charge. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial; (2) the prosecutor's comments during opening statement did not constitute error; (3) the verdict from presented no error of law; and (4) the sentencing court had no authority to order a term of postrelease supervision. View "State v. Fraire" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence for first-degree felony murder and several other offenses, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's departure motion and that Defendant abandoned his claim regarding proper notice under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq.After Defendant was originally sentenced, he filed two motions to correct an illegal sentence. The district court eventually resentenced Defendant but denied his motion for a departure sentence. Defendant appealed from his resentencing, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred in failing to notify him of his duty to register under KORA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for a departure sentence; and (2) Defendant failed to preserve his claim of defective notice under KORA. View "State v. Farmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for felony murder, intentional second-degree murder, felony theft of a firearm, felony theft of a vehicle, and burglary, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant raised three arguments attacking the sufficiency of the State's evidence supporting his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the State was sufficient to support the convictions, and the jury was not required to stack inferences in convicting Defendant; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's request for a lesser included offense instruction on voluntary manslaughter. View "State v. Colson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for failure to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), holding that the court of appeals panel erred when it declined to review Defendant's claim challenging her duty to register under the invited error doctrine, but the argument failed on the merits.During trial, Defendant filed a motion arguing that the State would need to prove she had a culpable mental state when she failed to register. The district court denied the motion, concluding that failure to register was a strict liability crime. The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting Defendant's defense of substantial compliance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial compliance is not an available defense to a charge of failure to register under KORA; (2) the unavailability of a substantial compliance defense did not violate Defendant's due process rights; (3) Defendant had standing to challenge KORA on its face as unconstitutional; and (4) while the court of appeals erred when it held that Defendant could not challenge the sufficiency of the State's evidence because she invited any error, Defendant's claim still failed on the merits. View "State v. Stoll" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for methamphetamine possession after he pled no contest to that offense, holding that the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4301 et seq.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court lost jurisdiction under the UMDDA because he was not timely brought to trial. The court of appeals rejected Defendant's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's argument that an inmate's substantial compliance always starts the UMDDA's 180-day time limit despite the plain statutory language was unavailing. View "State v. Griffin" on Justia Law