Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for driving under the influence and illegal transportation of liquor, holding that "manifest necessity" is the correct measure for declaring a jury deadlocked under the United States Supreme Court's double jeopardy caselaw when the defendant does not object or consent to the mistrial.Defendant's first trial ended in a mistrial without Defendant's consent because of a jury deadlock. After a second jury trial, Defendant was convicted. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) his second trial violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy, and (2) the jury instruction on the State's burden of proof improperly discouraged the jury from exercising its nullification power. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when a trial sua sponte declares a jury deadlocked and orders a mistrial when the defendant does not object or consent to the mistrial, retrial should be permitted only when there was a manifest necessity for the court's action, and the holding in State v. Graham, 83 P.3d 143 (Kan. 2004), to the contrary is overruled; (2) the district court properly declared a mistrial under the circumstances of this case based on the manifest necessity standard; and (3) Defendant's jury instruction challenge is rejected. View "State v. Kornelson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, attempted distribution of a controlled substance, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that any error resulting from the district court's exclusion of certain testimony was harmless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's convictions were not multiplicitous; (2) Defendant's argument that the State committed prosecutorial error when it made certain comments during its cross-examination of a certain witness was in essence an evidentiary question not properly preserved for appeal; (3) the district court's error in upholding a witness's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege and excluding his testimony, if any, was harmless; and (4) the cumulative doctrine did not apply. View "State v. George" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of several sex offenses involving two children but vacated the district court's order of lifetime postrelease supervision, holding that the district court erred in ordering two different forms of supervision once Defendant finishes serving his prison sentence.Defendant was convicted of five counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, one count of rape, and other sexual offenses. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and to two supervision terms - lifetime parole for Defendant's off-grid offenses and lifetime postrelease supervision for his on-grid crime. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the jury to hear evidence that he had sexually abused three other children. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the risk of undue prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence; and (2) the district court's imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision must be vacated. View "State v. Satchell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the court of appeals dismissing as moot Appellant's appeal from the revocation of his probation following an out-of-state arrest, holding that the court of appeals erred in relying on the Kansas Adult Supervised Population Electronic Repository (KASPER) as evidence to find that Appellant had completed his sentence.On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court improperly relied on hearsay testimony to support probation revocation in violation of his due process rights. The court of appeals dismissed the case as moot, relying on a KASPER printout and the State's description of an alleged phone call confirming the KASPER information to find that Appellant had been released from custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred to the extent that it relied on KASPER and the State's hearsay assertions; and (2) based on State v. Roat, __ P.3d __ (No. 113.531, this day decided), before dismissing a case as moot, a court must exercise caution and give due consideration to any assertion of affected rights. View "State v. Yazell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case to the court of appeals for consideration of State v. Roat, __ P.3d __ (No. 113,531, this day decided), holding that because the court of appeals did not have the advantage of Roat when it dismissed Defendant's appeal as moot, remand was required.In 2013, Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of criminal threat and two counts of assault against the victim. The district court later revoked Defendant's probation. While Defendant was serving his second round of probation, he committed acts that led to his later conviction for criminal threat. Defendant later filed Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion, which the court summarily dismissed. Defendant appealed, characterizing his original motion as both a section 60-1507 motion and a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as moot because Defendant had completed his sentence. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that, under Roat, the completion of a sentence does not necessarily render a case moot, and courts must carefully analyze whether dismissal would affect an asserted right. View "State v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the appeal was moot.In 2011, Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment based on a criminal history classification of B. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his criminal history classification was incorrect, making his resulting sentence illegal. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed. The State moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the case was moot because Defendant had completed his sentence. The court of appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal as moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant failed to offer the court of appeals any challenge or response to the State's motion to dismiss, Defendant failed to preserve any argument for appeal. View "State v. Mayes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals granting the State's motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal of the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence based on the calculation of his criminal history, holding that because Defendant failed to challenge the State's motion for involuntary dismissal of his case as moot, dismissal correct.Defendant was convicted of a drug offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a criminal history classification of A. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the district court denied. Defendant appealed. Thereafter, the State sought dismissal on the grounds that Defendant had completed his sentence and the appeal was moot. The court of appeals granted the motion when Defendant did not challenge that motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not preserve his argument for appeal. View "State v. Sykes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal brought by Defendant challenging the district court's decision to classify his 1974 Colorado conviction for second-degree burglary as a person felony when determining his criminal history score prior to sentencing him for methamphetamine possession, holding that the appeal was moot.Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the district court denied. On appeal, Defendant argued that his Colorado conviction was improperly classified. The court of appeals disagreed. Before the Supreme Court heard this appeal, Defendant fully served his prison sentence and the applicable period of postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue raised before the Court was moot and that none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. View "State v. Tracy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's appeal of the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the completion of a sentence does not necessarily render a case moot but that Appellant's appeal became moot as a consequence of the expiration of his sentencing conditions.Defendant pled guilty to making a criminal threat and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a probation period. His probation was later revoked, and the prison term was imposed. The next year, Defendant pled guilty in a separate case to drug offense. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty-four months in prison. Defendant later filed a motion arguing that both sentences were illegal because the court had improperly calculated his criminal history. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals dismissed Defendant's appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a case is moot when a court determines it is clearly and convincingly shown that the actual controversy has ended, that the only judgment that could be entered would be ineffectual for any purpose, and that it would not have an impact on any of the parties' rights; and (2) under the circumstances, Defendant's appeal was moot. View "State v. Roat" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's postsentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea after it found that the record conclusively showed Defendant's plea was knowing and voluntarily made, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion.Defendant pled guilty to premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, felony theft, forgery, and misdemeanor theft. In his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, Defendant argued that he had a mental illness that rendered his plea involuntary. The district court denied the motion. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing and that his counsel was ineffective because he did not have Defendant undergo a mental health evaluation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to show the manifest injustice necessary to allow him to withdraw his plea; and (2) counsel's decision to forgo a mental health evaluation did not constitute deficient representation. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law