Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court ordering Defendant to pay $5,000 in restitution, holding that Defendant met his burden to present some evidence of compelling circumstances to prove the restitution was unworkable.Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of capital murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to prison for life without parole and ordered him to pay restitution but without explicitly ordering payments from prison. The district court judge who had previously found Defendant indigent stated, "[a]nd I understand with the restitution of 5,000 that it will never be paid." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances, the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution. View "State v. Tucker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated its judgment reversing the judgment of the court of appeals, which reversed the district court's ruling granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop, holding that the district court's judgment is affirmed in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court.The district court determined that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of illegal activity when he stopped the vehicle, making the seizure of Defendant a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals. The United States Supreme Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari and reversed, holding that the investigative traffic stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Kansas Supreme Court vacated its judgment reversing the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Glover" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for two counts of rape of a child under the age of fourteen, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that rape of a child has no mental culpability requirement so Defendant's intent was irrelevant.On appeal, Defendant argued that K.H., the alleged victim, raped her and that she continued the sexual contact because K.H. was blackmailing her and she had a mental disease or defect. The court of appeals concluded that whether K.H. forced the sexual encounter was irrelevant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that even if Defendant's rape defense was not relevant to a mental culpability requirement, it was relevant to the actus reus requirement. The Court remanded the case to the district court for a Van Cleave hearing to determine whether defense trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the State never established the voluntary act requirement. View "State v. Dinkel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated its decision reversing the lower courts' conclusions that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) did not preempt Defendant's prosecution for identity theft, holding that, in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court on certiorari in this case, Defendant's prosecution was not preempted by the IRCA.A district court judge found Defendant guilty after denying his motion to dismiss charges based on representations in his W-4 employment form and I-9 form. On appeal, Defendant argued that the IRCA preempted identify theft prosecutions. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that IRCA preempted Defendant's prosecution. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that state law prosecutions for identity theft were not preempted by the IRCA. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated its decision reversing the judgment of both the court of appeals and district court concluding that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) did not preempt Defendant's prosecution for identity theft and making false information, holding that, in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court on certiorari in this case, Defendant's prosecution was not preempted by the IRCA.A district court judge found Defendant guilty after denying his motion to dismiss charges based on representations in his W-4 employment form. On appeal, Defendant argued that the IRCA preempted identify theft and making false information prosecutions. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that IRCA preempted Defendant's prosecutions. The United State Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that state law prosecutions for identity theft and making false information were not preempted by the IRCA. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court. View "State v. Morales" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for the premeditated murder of his mother, holding that the prosecutor erred in one respect during closing argument but that the erroneous comment was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against Defendant.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the victim's missing wedding ring and Defendant's possession of child pornography and charges stemming from this possession; (2) the prosecutor's statement during closing argument that the victim "could breathe just fine" crossed the line into speculation and was inflammatory, but the error was harmless in light of the trial as a whole; (3) Defendant's remaining claims of prosecutorial misconduct were without merit; and (4) the single error was insufficient to support reversal under the cumulative effect rule. View "State v. Hachmeister " on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's postsentence motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty to two counts of premeditated murder, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and did not commit reversible error.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to two premeditated murder charges for the death of his wife and the unborn child she was carrying. The district court accepted the terms of the agreement and sentenced Defendant to two concurrent hard fifty terms of life imprisonment. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that manifest injustice warranted voiding the plea agreement. The district court denied the motion after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not demonstrate that the district court's findings were arbitrary or unreasonable, were based on an error of law, or were based on an error of fact. View "State v. Cott" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of both first-degree premeditated murder and the alternative charge of first-degree felony murder, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's request for a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication because insufficient evidence supported Defendant's voluntary intoxication defense; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the victim's body at trial because, while the photographs may have been gruesome, they were relevant and admissible to show the manner and nature of the victim's death and to corroborate certain testimony; and (3) cumulative error did not deny Defendant a fair trial. View "State v. Morris" on Justia Law