Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court judge granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that this Court cannot consider the merits of Defendant's constitutional arguments because a motion to correct an illegal sentence is an improper vehicle for them.Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole for twenty-five years, known as a hard twenty-five, upon his plea of no contest to first-degree murder. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his hard twenty-five was constitutionally disproportionate and that the district judge erred by imposing lifetime postrelease supervision. The district court agreed that Defendant should not be subject to lifetime postrelease supervision but rejected Defendant's constitutional challenge. Defendant appealed, arguing that his hard twenty-five was disproportionate under the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot raise claims that a sentence violates a constitutional provision. View "State v. Peterson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant after he pled guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine, felony domestic battery, and violation of a protective order, holding that the district judge did not engage in prohibited double counting of two prior misdemeanor domestic battery convictions.Defendant's domestic battery conviction qualified as a felony rather than a misdemeanor because it was his third such conviction in five years. In calculating Defendant's criminal history score to determine the sentence for Defendant's conviction for methamphetamine possession, the judge included the same two misdemeanor domestic battery convictions that were used to elevate Defendant's domestic battery to a felony. On appeal, Defendant asserted that the district judge engaged in double counting of the two prior misdemeanor domestic battery convictions under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6810(d)(9). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that including Defendant's prior domestic battery convictions in Defendant's criminal history calculation for his primary grid conviction did not violate the double-counting provision of section 21-6810(d)(9). View "State v. Fowler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denials of Defendant's motions to withdraw his pleas of guilty to first-degree felony murder and attempted second-degree intentional murder but vacated the imposition of lifetime supervision, holding that the district court had no authority to impose lifetime postrelease supervision.Before sentencing, Defendant moved to withdraw his pleas of guilty to first-degree felony murder and attempted second-degree intentional murder. The district court denied the motions. The court imposed a life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction and ordered lifetime postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motions to withdraw his pleas; but (2) the district court erred when it sentenced Defendant to lifetime postrelease supervision on the first-degree murder conviction because Defendant was eligible for parole after serving twenty years of his off-grid indeterminate life sentence for that conviction. View "State v. Newman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Appellant's appeal challenging his convictions, holding that the court of appeals did not err when it dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3602(a) provides that a defendant cannot appeal a conviction after pleading guilty. Appellant pleaded guilty to refusing to submit to a test to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs and driving while a habitual violator. In a second case, Appellant again pleaded guilty to refusing to submit to a test to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs and driving under the influence. Appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to render them. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider a direct appeal from a guilty plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction to review Appellant's claim. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a court of appeals panel reversing a conviction of burglary of a dwelling, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.The panel reversed Defendant's conviction based on the building owner's testimony that no one lived there when the crime occurred and that the owner had no plans to live there or rent it out. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutory definition of "dwelling" requires proof the burgled place was used as human habitation, home, or residence when the crime occurred or proof that someone had a present, subjective intent at the time of the crime to use the burgled place for such a purpose; and (2) because the State's case lacked that proof the evidence could not support the burglary conviction. View "State v. Downing" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded Defendant's case for resentencing, holding that the court of appeals properly rejected Defendant's speedy trial claim but that Defendant's sentence was erroneous.Defendant was convicted of unintentional second-degree murder. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. On remand, Defendant was again convicted of unintentional second-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that his statutory rights to a speedy trial were violated at his first trial, thereby invalidating his second trial, that the district court imposed a vindictive sentence, and that his sentence was illegal because the district court improperly scored an out-of-state conviction as a person crime. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant's last argument and otherwise affirmed, holding that Defendant's out-of-state conviction was improperly scored as a person crime. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence arising from an armed robbery in which a victim was killed by an accomplice, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's felony-murder conviction did not violate due process because the felony-murder statute does not remove from the jury's consideration an intent element required by criminal statute; (2) the district court did not commit clear error when it instructed the jury to apply the law if the State proved all elements of the charged offenses; (3) the prosecutor did not commit error during voir dire by saying that an empaneled jury could not "debate" the law; (4) Defendant's constitutional challenges to his hard twenty-five life sentence were unavailing; and (5) Defendant's Apprendi challenge to the use of criminal history scores was without merit. View "State v. Patterson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree felony murder, two counts of aggravated battery, and related offenses, holding that the district court judge properly admitted as evidence recorded jail calls made using Defendant's assigned personal identification number and that a challenged provision in the Kansas felony fleeing and eluding statute is not unconstitutionally vague.On appeal, Defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the district judge erred by admitting the jail phone calls into evidence and that Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1568(b)(1)(E), the option within a means of the felony fleeing and eluding statute dependent on five or more moving violations, is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the recorded calls as evidence in Defendant's trial; and (2) the term "moving violations" used in section 8-1568(b)(1)(E) is not unconstitutionally vague. View "State v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for felony murder based on abuse of a child, abuse of a child by shaking, and aggravated battery, holding that the district court did not err or commit judicial misconduct during the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for new trial; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Defendant's proposed expert witness for failure to satisfy the test under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); (3) the district court did not err by allowing the State to introduce evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts; (4) the district court judge did not commit judicial misconduct by sleeping during the trial; and (5) the district court did not err by prohibiting Defendant from introducing medical records that were subject to a written stipulation. View "State v. Lyman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant conviction based on a violation of the right to jury trial but affirming the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the court of appeals did not err in agreeing with the district court's conclusion that the officer had probable cause to support a reasonable belief that Defendant had been driving while intoxicated beyond the legal limit.Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery while driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless blood draw. The court of appeals reversed the conviction but affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the factors in this case supported probable cause. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding (1) probable cause existed in this case; and (2) as to the issue of whether the warrantless blood draw was justified by exigent circumstances the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing and a ruling from the district court on exigency in light of Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. __ (2019). View "State v. Chavez-Majors" on Justia Law