Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The district court incorrectly sentenced Defendant by misclassifying a 2007 Michigan home invasion conviction as a person felony when calculating Defendant’s criminal history score under the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act.Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a firearm and theft. The sentencing court imposed a sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor committed two errors during closing argument, but the errors were harmless; and (2) the district court correctly classified the Michigan conviction as a person felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his sentence, holding (1) the prosecutorial error in closing argument was harmless; but (2) the Michigan conviction must be scored as a nonperson felony because the Michigan home invasion was not comparable to the Kansas offense of burglary of a dwelling as it existed when Defendant committed the crimes in this case. View "State v. Sturgis" on Justia Law

The district court erred in holding Defendant in contempt of court for invoking his constitutional right to remain silent.Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to an eighty-three-month prison sentence. After his trial was completed, the State subpoenaed Defendant to be a witness at a codefendant’s murder trial. The State granted Defendant use immunity for his testimony, and the trial judge ordered Defendant to testify in the codefendant’s trial. Defendant, however, refused the judge’s order to testify. After the codefendant was convicted, a different judge held Defendant in contempt for failing to comply with the order of the court “to appear and testify under oath as a witness.” The judge then found Defendant guilty of direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to 108 months' imprisonment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the use immunity granted to Defendant was not coextensive with Defendant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination, and therefore, the judge’s order compelling Defendant’s testimony at his codefendant’s trial violated Defendant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination and was unlawful; and (2) the ensuing order finding Defendant in direct contempt of court for refusing to testify was likewise unlawful. View "State v. Delacruz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary denial of Appellant’s pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court’s failure to hold a hearing on the motion with Appellant present did not violate the plain language of Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504 or violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6801, precludes a first-time offender from receiving the maximum sentence. The district court summarily dismissed the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had no right to a hearing or to be present for the district court’s preliminary review of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "State v. Hayes" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree premeditated murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court vacated the hard fifty sentence and remanded for resentencing, as required by Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). On remand, Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record reflecting the entire plea process supported the district court’s exercise of discretion guided by the factors set forth in State v. Edgar, 127 P.3d 986 (Kan. 2006). View "State v. DeAnda" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree premeditated murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court vacated the hard fifty sentence and remanded for resentencing, as required by Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). On remand, Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record reflecting the entire plea process supported the district court’s exercise of discretion guided by the factors set forth in State v. Edgar, 127 P.3d 986 (Kan. 2006). View "State v. DeAnda" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of battery and other offenses, holding that the trial court committed structural error in handling Defendant’s invocation of his right to self-representation.At a motions hearing before Defendant’s trial was to begin, Defendant interjected during argument before the court and stated that he wanted it on the record that he was “unequivocally” asserting his right to self-representation. The judge refused to take up the matter of self-representation, telling Defendant that he must file a written motion if he wanted to represent himself. Defendant did not file the motion or otherwise reassert the right to self-representation when court reconvened. The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, rejecting Defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to self-representation. The Supreme Court concluded that Defendant was denied his right to self-representation and that the error was structural. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Bunyard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of battery and other offenses, holding that the trial court committed structural error in handling Defendant’s invocation of his right to self-representation.At a motions hearing before Defendant’s trial was to begin, Defendant interjected during argument before the court and stated that he wanted it on the record that he was “unequivocally” asserting his right to self-representation. The judge refused to take up the matter of self-representation, telling Defendant that he must file a written motion if he wanted to represent himself. Defendant did not file the motion or otherwise reassert the right to self-representation when court reconvened. The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, rejecting Defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to self-representation. The Supreme Court concluded that Defendant was denied his right to self-representation and that the error was structural. The court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Bunyard" on Justia Law

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s postsentencing motion to withdraw pleas.Defendant pleaded guilty and no contest to drug charges in two separate cases. The district court sentenced Defendant in both cases to a total of 178 months in prison and ordered him to register as a drug offender. Defendant later moved to withdraw his pleas. The court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that his pleas were not understandingly made, that he was misled into believing the State would not oppose probation, and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s pleas were understandingly made; (2) Defendant was not misled into believing the State would not oppose probation; and (3) Defendant’s attorney was not ineffective. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s postsentencing motion to withdraw pleas.Defendant pleaded guilty and no contest to drug charges in two separate cases. The district court sentenced Defendant in both cases to a total of 178 months in prison and ordered him to register as a drug offender. Defendant later moved to withdraw his pleas. The court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that his pleas were not understandingly made, that he was misled into believing the State would not oppose probation, and that his attorney provided ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s pleas were understandingly made; (2) Defendant was not misled into believing the State would not oppose probation; and (3) Defendant’s attorney was not ineffective. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court convicting Defendant of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and sentencing him to a total prison term of sixty-one months and requiring Defendant to register as a sex offender for the remainder of his life pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). The court held (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for a dispositional departure to probation; and (2) Defendant’s lifetime registration requirement did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "State v. Ibarra" on Justia Law