Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Larry D. Huggins III was convicted of felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery following a series of events that led to the deaths of two young men. Huggins and his accomplices planned to rob O.H., a minor who sold marijuana, but the plan went awry, resulting in a shootout. Huggins was injured and later arrested. At trial, Huggins testified, denying any intent to rob and claiming he was merely trying to buy marijuana.The Shawnee District Court found Huggins guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to a hard 25 life sentence for felony murder, with additional consecutive sentences for the other charges, totaling a minimum of 25 years plus 103 months. Huggins was also ordered to pay $2,500 in attorney fees.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed several issues on appeal. Huggins argued that the jury instructions were erroneous because they did not match the charging document, which listed two victims for the attempted aggravated robbery. The court found the instructions legally appropriate as they included all statutory elements of the crime. Huggins also claimed insufficient evidence for his convictions, but the court held that the State did not need to prove he intended to rob both victims named in the charging document.Huggins challenged the voluntariness of his statements to police, arguing he was under the influence of medication and fatigued. The court found his statements voluntary, noting he was coherent and calm during the interview. Huggins also contested the admissibility of Facebook messages obtained via a search warrant, but the court ruled he failed to preserve this issue for appeal.The court found no prosecutorial error in the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments and rejected Huggins' claim of cumulative error. However, the court vacated the imposition of attorney fees, remanding the case for reconsideration of Huggins' ability to pay. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated and remanded the fee imposition. View "State v. Huggins" on Justia Law

Williams Nunez was charged with rape for engaging in sexual intercourse with a person unable to consent due to intoxication. He admitted to the act but claimed the victim was not too intoxicated to consent. A jury convicted him, and the district court sentenced him to 155 months in prison with lifetime postrelease supervision, based on the finding that he was 18 years or older at the time of the crime.Nunez appealed, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey were violated because his age was not determined by the jury. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence, concluding that Nunez had sufficiently admitted his age through various documents and statements, and any Apprendi error was harmless.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if Nunez's rights under Apprendi were violated. The court held that for a sentencing court to rely on a defendant's admission to increase a sentence, the admission must follow a knowing and voluntary waiver of the jury trial right. Since Nunez did not waive his jury trial rights regarding his age, the court found an Apprendi violation. The court also determined that the error was not harmless because the jury was not presented with evidence of Nunez's age.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, vacated the district court's sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing. The court directed that Nunez be sentenced to 60 months of postrelease supervision under K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1)(G)(ii), as this was the appropriate term given the lack of a jury finding on his age. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

Pettix McMillan was convicted of three counts of attempted first-degree murder after shooting his then-wife and two sons. The State sought upward durational departure sentences for the counts involving his sons, citing their vulnerability and McMillan's fiduciary responsibility. The jury found these aggravating factors, and McMillan filed a motion for a downward departure, which the sentencing judge denied. The judge imposed a total sentence of 1,068 months but did not clearly designate a primary count or specify the sentences for each count.McMillan appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals vacated his sentences, finding the total sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. On remand, the district court imposed a new sentence of 1,029 months, designating count two as the primary count but did not consider McMillan's renewed departure motion. McMillan appealed again, and the Court of Appeals held the district court erred by not considering the departure motion and by imposing a new sentence on counts two and three, which it deemed legal in the original sentencing.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the original sentences were illegal due to the failure to designate a primary count and specify sentences for each count. The Court found the original sentencing judge's intentions unclear and the journal entry inconsistent. It concluded that the McMillan II panel correctly vacated all sentences and that the McMillan III panel erred in limiting the resentencing to count one. The Court also held that the district court on remand must consider McMillan's departure motion, as the mandate rule did not preclude it. The case was remanded for a third sentencing hearing with directions to consider the departure motion and comply with the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act. View "State v. McMillan" on Justia Law

Robert William Doelz was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to a warrantless search, and the evidence obtained should have been suppressed. On remand, the State dropped the charge and did not pursue a retrial. Subsequently, Doelz sought compensation for his wrongful conviction under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-5004, which requires proving actual innocence among other criteria.The Shawnee District Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, interpreting K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) to require a claimant to prove that their innocence resulted in the reversal of their conviction, dismissal of charges, or a not guilty verdict upon retrial. The court found that Doelz's conviction was reversed due to a Fourth Amendment violation, not because he did not commit the crime. Since there was no evidence explaining why the charges were dismissed, a material fact remained unresolved. At a bench trial, Doelz testified to his innocence, but the court granted the State's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that Doelz failed to prove the charges were dismissed due to his innocence.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) requires a claimant to prove actual innocence and that this innocence led to the reversal, dismissal, or acquittal. The court found that the legislative intent behind the statute was to compensate only those who are factually innocent. Since Doelz did not provide evidence that the charges were dismissed because of his innocence, he did not meet the statutory requirements for compensation. View "In the Matter of the Wrongful Conviction of Doelz" on Justia Law

Alonzo Union served as the caretaker and power of attorney for Jean Miller, an elderly woman with dementia. Union had access to Miller's finances and was responsible for her care. After Miller moved into a nursing home and accumulated an unpaid bill, the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) investigated Union's financial activities. Union entered a no contest plea to mistreatment of a dependent adult. The court ordered Union to pay restitution to the nursing home for Miller's outstanding balance and to Miller for certain payments and cash withdrawals from her account.The Wyandotte District Court accepted Union's no contest plea and found him guilty. At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a 43-month underlying sentence, suspended in favor of probation, and ordered Union to pay $31,511.26 in restitution. This amount included $7,632.74 to the nursing home and $23,878.52 to Miller, covering one-half of the ATM withdrawals and Walmart purchases, among other expenses. Union appealed, arguing that the restitution order was not supported by substantial competent evidence. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's restitution order, except for the part that converted the restitution award into a civil judgment.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and vacated the portion of the restitution order directing Union to pay the nursing home $7,632.74, finding insufficient evidence that Union's crime caused the unpaid bill. However, the court affirmed the restitution order requiring Union to pay $23,878.52 to Miller. The court concluded that Union's no contest plea established that he misappropriated at least $25,000 from Miller, providing substantial competent evidence to support the restitution amount. The court held that the no contest plea and the well-pleaded facts in the charging document could be considered in determining the restitution award. View "State v. Union" on Justia Law

Matthew Douglas Hutto pled guilty to two counts of felony murder and received two consecutive hard 25 life sentences. After sentencing, Hutto filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas, which the district court denied. Hutto appealed the denial, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. Before the deadline to file a motion for rehearing or modification of the Supreme Court's decision, Hutto was subpoenaed to testify against his accomplice, Richard Daniel Showalter. Hutto invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. The district court ruled that Hutto no longer had the privilege and found him in contempt, imposing a six-month jail sanction.Hutto appealed the contempt finding, arguing that he retained his Fifth Amendment privilege because he had not exhausted all methods of attacking his convictions and sentences, including a potential motion for rehearing or modification and a possible habeas corpus motion. The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected Hutto's argument, holding that defendants lose their privilege against self-incrimination at sentencing when they plead guilty and do not move to withdraw their plea before sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's finding of contempt.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the proper standard to determine whether the Fifth Amendment privilege protects a witness from being compelled to testify is whether the testimony sought exposes the witness to a legitimate risk of incrimination, not a hypothetical or speculative one. The court overruled previous decisions that terminated the privilege at sentencing for guilty pleas. The court concluded that Hutto faced a legitimate risk of incrimination if forced to testify because he still had a legally viable opportunity to challenge the court's decision by filing a motion for rehearing or modification. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order finding Hutto in contempt and vacated the six-month jail sanction. View "State v. Showalter" on Justia Law

Grover D. James was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm for a 2015 incident where he fatally shot Leon McClennon at a birthday party in Wichita. Surveillance footage showed James entering a store basement with McClennon and others, and later walking past McClennon's collapsed body. James admitted to firing two shots but claimed he did not intend to hit anyone. Witnesses testified that the shooting was deliberate, and the jury found James guilty, sentencing him to a hard 50 life sentence for murder and a concurrent 21-month sentence for firearm possession.James filed multiple petitions for relief in the Sedgwick District Court, including claims of newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that an affidavit from a witness, Rance Kindred, recanting his statements to police warranted a new trial. The district court denied these petitions, finding that the evidence could have been produced at trial and was unlikely to change the outcome. James also claimed ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel, arguing that his attorneys failed to protect his speedy trial rights and did not adequately challenge continuances. The district court denied these claims without an evidentiary hearing.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that James did not meet the burden of showing that the newly discovered evidence could not have been produced at trial or that it would likely result in a different outcome. The court also found no merit in James' ineffective assistance claims, noting that his speedy trial rights were not violated and that his appellate counsel's performance was not deficient. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying James' motions and affirmed the denial of relief. View "State v. James" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers arrested the appellant, Crista Hinostroza, and transported her to the Lyon County jail, where a small handgun was discovered concealed in her bra. Hinostroza was charged with trafficking contraband into a correctional facility, possession of a weapon by a felon, interference with a law enforcement officer, and battery on a law enforcement officer. At trial, the State presented evidence including bodycam videos, photographs of the jail, and testimony from officers and the jail captain. Hinostroza testified that she did not disclose the gun to the officers because she was uncomfortable with male officers touching her and believed the female staff at the jail would find it during their search.The Lyon District Court convicted Hinostroza of criminal possession of a firearm, trafficking contraband in a correctional facility, and interference with a law enforcement officer. She was acquitted of battery on a law enforcement officer. Hinostroza appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of intent and voluntariness, lack of individualized notice of contraband rules, and improper jury instructions. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that an arrestee who consciously acts to conceal and carry contraband into a correctional facility acts voluntarily. It found that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, supported the conclusion that Hinostroza intentionally introduced the gun into the jail. The court also held that the jail provided adequate notice of what constituted contraband through posted signs and Hinostroza's prior knowledge of the jail's rules. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the jury should have been instructed on the requirement of individualized notice, finding no legal basis for such an instruction. View "State v. Hinostroza" on Justia Law

On February 17, 2019, Justin Gaston was shot and killed in a motel parking lot in Wichita, Kansas. Investigators arrested Christopher D. Kemmerly based on circumstantial evidence, including messages from his phone and statements from his girlfriend, Reyna Wallace, and Christopher Breedlove. Kemmerly was charged with felony murder, criminal possession of a weapon, theft, and arson. After a five-day trial, a jury found him guilty. Kemmerly moved for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the district court granted. At his second trial, Kemmerly chose to represent himself and was again found guilty on all charges.The Sedgwick District Court initially allowed Kemmerly to represent himself after a thorough colloquy to ensure his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. During the second trial, Kemmerly requested counsel midtrial, which the court denied, citing the disruption and delay it would cause. The court found that Kemmerly's waiver of his right to counsel was valid and that his midtrial request for counsel was untimely.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the district court did not violate Kemmerly's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by allowing him to represent himself, as the waiver was knowing and intelligent. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Kemmerly's midtrial request for counsel, as it would have caused significant disruption. Additionally, the court ruled that sufficient evidence supported Kemmerly's convictions, and it declined to address his constitutional challenge to K.S.A. 21-6304(a)(3)(A) because it was not raised in the lower court. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Kemmerly's convictions and sentence. View "State v. Kemmerly" on Justia Law

Christopher Michael Jacobson pled guilty to one count of robbery for an incident that occurred in December 2013. He was sentenced in May 2015 to 130 months in prison based on a criminal history score of A. In 2019, Jacobson moved to correct his sentence, arguing that his criminal history score was incorrect. The district court denied his motion, but during the appeal process, the parties agreed that his sentence was illegal. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to exclude certain Missouri municipal ordinance violations from his criminal history score. At resentencing, the district court applied the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing and reduced his sentence to 120 months.The Court of Appeals vacated the new sentence and remanded the case again, directing the district court to apply a more recent legal standard from State v. Wetrich, which would classify Jacobson's Missouri convictions as nonperson crimes. The State petitioned for review, arguing that the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing should apply, as established in State v. Clark.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing determines the legality of a sentence when a case arises from a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in treating Jacobson's resentencing as a direct appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the district court's application of the law in effect at the time of the original sentencing, which was consistent with the precedent set in Clark. View "State v. Jacobson" on Justia Law