Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions of rape and aggravated indecent liberties with a child and vacated the portion of district court's judgment imposing postrelease supervision on Defendant's two hard twenty-five life sentences, holding sua sponte that the postrelease supervision order was illegal.Specifically, the Court held (1) harmless prosecutorial error occurred when, in the prosecutor's closing argument, he expanded the time frame in which the crime allegedly occurred; (2) the district court did not err in admitting into evidence a video of an interview of the child victim; (3) Defendant failed to preserve his pretrial objection to the admission of prior acts of sexual misconduct; (4) the district court did not err in not ordering a psychological evaluation of the child victim; (5) cumulative error did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; but (6) the postrelease supervision order was illegal. View "State v. Ballou" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of seven sex crimes and reversed the court of appeals, which reversed two of the convictions sua sponte and remanded the case with directions to resentence Defendant for aggravated incest on those counts instead, holding that the court of appeals erred when it reversed Defendant's convictions sua sponte.The court of appeals reversed Defendant's convictions for aggravated criminal sodomy and rape because it believed that aggravated incest was the more specific crime for both counts. The Supreme Court held (1) aggravated incest, as now defined, is not a more specific crime than aggravated criminal sodomy or rape, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in reversing these convictions; (2) the jury instructions listing criminal sodomy as an alternate to aggravated criminal sodomy were not erroneous; (3) the district court adequately inquired into a potential conflict Defendant had with his attorney; and (4) the jury instruction stating that the "verdict must be founded entirely upon the evidence admitted and the law as given in these instructions" was legally correct. View "State v. Toothman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction and the sentencing judge's imposition of a registration requirement under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., reaffirming its holding that mandatory KORA registration is not punishment for a criminal conviction.Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary. On appeal, Defendant argued that he should have received jury instructions on reckless aggravated battery and that imposition of an offender registration requirement based on a deadly weapon factual finding made by the judge rather than a jury violated his rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the instructions were legally and factually appropriate; and (2) Defendant did not provide any evidence or argument to establish the punitive effects of KORA registration that is any different from that previously rejected by this Court. View "State v. Perez-Medina" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the district court's summary denial of Defendant's second Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion and remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective, holding that the court of appeals applied an incorrect standard to determine whether the district court should have considered a second or successive motion.In his second section 60-1507 motion Defendant argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a defense of mental defect and to request jury instructions regarding the defense of mental defect. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a hearing on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Defendant's mental defect defense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in holding that the district court did not have to find exceptional circumstances to consider the merits of Defendant's section 60-1507 motion. View "Littlejohn v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions of stalking and criminal threat, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held that the court of appeals did not err in (1) concluding that a rational fact-finder could have found all of the elements necessary to determine that Defendant was guilty of stalking, as charged; (2) failing to address Defendant's claim that he was entitled to an instruction and argument regarding a defense that the victim waived her right to enforce a protection from abuse order; (3) concluding that the district court did not err in failing to give the jury a limiting instruction concerning a protection from abuse court order; and (4) refusing to grant Defendant a new trial due to cumulative error. View "State v. Chavez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision that affirmed the sentencing court's imposition of an extended probation term as being a legal sentence notwithstanding the sentencing court's reliance on an inapplicable statutory provision, holding that Defendant's sentence was illegal because the court of appeals refused to apply the mandatory precedent of State v. Whitesell, 13 P.3d 887 (Kan. 2000).Whitesell required the sentencing court to state for the record substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the presumptive duration of probation. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court's failure to state its reasons in imposing a departure sentence resulted in an illegal sentence. The court of appeals affirmed after recognizing that Whitesell applied departure sentencing procedures to an increased probation term, declaring that Whitesell no longer controlled due to changes in the law. The Supreme Court disagreed and vacated the probation portion of Defendant's sentence, holding that the court of appeals' decision overruling this Court's holding was an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Hambright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court's summary denial of Defendant's untimely pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, holding that Defendant did not raise a colorable claim to excuse his untimely filing.The court of appeals recognized that Defendant's motion was untimely but concluded that Defendant had shown that extension of the one-year time period for filing his motion was necessary to prevent a manifest injustice. The court then remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant failed to establish manifest injustice, and therefore, the district court did not err in summarily denying the motion. View "Noyce v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision affirming the district court's summary denial of Defendant's motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence but reversed its erroneous holding that it could not consider the legality of Defendant's other four prior Illinois convictions, holding that an appellate court has the authority to consider an illegal sentence issue raised for the first time on appeal.Before the district court, Defendant argued that five of his prior Illinois convictions were improperly classified as person felonies in his Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act criminal history calculation. The court of appeals rejected Defendant's challenge to the classification of one of his prior convictions but refused to consider the legality of the other four convictions on the grounds that those challenges were made for the first time on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals (1) properly concluded that one of Defendant's prior convictions was properly scored as a person felony; but (2) erred when it declined to consider the legality of Defendant's sentence from the perspective of the classification of all five prior Illinois convictions. View "State v. Sartin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence in each of three docketed cases in this appeal and remanded each for resentencing, holding that the sentencing court erred in classifying two Arkansas misdemeanors as person offenses when determining Defendant's criminal history score after he pleaded guilty to three counts of felony theft and one count of attempted aggravated burglary.The court of appeals held that Defendant's Arkansas false imprisonment conviction was properly scored as a person crime but vacated the sentences because the record was unclear what statute or subsection Defendant's Arkansas battery offense arose under. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there is no comparable Kansas person crime to the Arkansas false imprisonment conviction, and therefore, the lower courts erred when concluding that the Arkansas offense should be classified as a person crime; and (2) insufficient evidence supported the person-crime classification for the Arkansas battery conviction because the record did not reflect which statutory provision Defendant was convicted under. Therefore, remand was required for the district court to conduct further proceedings before classifying the Arkansas battery conviction. View "State v. Ewing" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's classification of Defendant's prior Washington state residential burglary conviction as a person felony, holding that the Washington offense's intent element was broader than that required to commit a Kansas person crime.Defendant pleaded guilty to two drug-related felony convictions that occurred in 2014. In 2016, the district court held a sentencing hearing. The court calculated a criminal history score of B, based in part on classifying as a person felony a 2003 Washington conviction for residential burglary. After Defendant was sentenced he appealed, arguing that the sentencing court erred in classifying his Washington residential burglary conviction as a person felony because the Washington statute was broader than the Kansas burglary statute. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's prior residential burglary must be scored as a nonperson felony under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6811(e)(3). View "State v. Saucedo" on Justia Law