Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder, holding that Defendant’s right to be present at a continuance hearing did not cause reversible harm and that none of Defendant’s other challenges required reversal.The Supreme Court previously issued a decision in this case remanding for an evidentiary hearing to establish a record on whether Defendant’s right to be present at the continuance hearing was harmless error. Having evaluated the results of the hearing, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no reversible error resulting from the violation of Defendant’s right to be present; (2) there was no reversible error from any related allegation of error based on Defendant’s lawyer’s failure to argue a violation of the speedy trial statute; (3) there was no reversible error from the prosecution’s failure to bring Defendant to trial within ninety days of his arraignment; and (4) Defendant’s remaining appellate challenges to his convictions were unavailing and did not require reversal. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder, holding that Defendant’s right to be present at a continuance hearing did not cause reversible harm and that none of Defendant’s other challenges required reversal.The Supreme Court previously issued a decision in this case remanding for an evidentiary hearing to establish a record on whether Defendant’s right to be present at the continuance hearing was harmless error. Having evaluated the results of the hearing, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no reversible error resulting from the violation of Defendant’s right to be present; (2) there was no reversible error from any related allegation of error based on Defendant’s lawyer’s failure to argue a violation of the speedy trial statute; (3) there was no reversible error from the prosecution’s failure to bring Defendant to trial within ninety days of his arraignment; and (4) Defendant’s remaining appellate challenges to his convictions were unavailing and did not require reversal. View "State v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals disposing of Defendant’s appeal exclusively on the ground that Defendant’s constitutional claim was not preserved for appeal.Defendant pled no contest to attempted kidnapping and domestic battery. Defendant was required to register as a violent offender for life pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). During the lower court proceedings, Defendant acknowledged that registration “is not considered punishment.” On appeal, Defendant argued, for the first time, that retroactive application of KORA’s lifetime registration violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the merits of Defendant’s claims, concluding that Defendant invited error regarding his ex post facto claim when he conceded that registration was not punishment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s claim was not preserved for appeal. View "State v. Daniel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals disposing of Defendant’s appeal exclusively on the ground that Defendant’s constitutional claim was not preserved for appeal.Defendant pled no contest to attempted kidnapping and domestic battery. Defendant was required to register as a violent offender for life pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). During the lower court proceedings, Defendant acknowledged that registration “is not considered punishment.” On appeal, Defendant argued, for the first time, that retroactive application of KORA’s lifetime registration violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the merits of Defendant’s claims, concluding that Defendant invited error regarding his ex post facto claim when he conceded that registration was not punishment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s claim was not preserved for appeal. View "State v. Daniel" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for capital murder and his sentence of death. The court held (1) the State did not commit prosecutorial error by objecting during Defendant’s closing argument; (2) the district court judge engaged in one incident of judicial misconduct, but the error did not require reversal; (3) the district judge erred in refusing to give a requested expert witness instruction, but the error was harmless; (4) Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3220 did not unconstitutionally abrogate Kansas’ former insanity defense; (5) the district judge did not err in failing to give a lesser included instruction on felony murder; (6) the district judge did not prohibit defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors during voir dire about their views on the death penalty; (7) the cumulative effect of trial errors did not deny Defendant a fair trial; (8) the Kansas death penalty is not a categorically disproportionate punishment for offenders who are “severely mentally ill” at the time they commit their crimes; (9) the aggravating factors supporting the death penalty are not unconstitutionally vague or duplicative; and (10) sufficient evidence supported the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance. View "State v. Kahler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence Defendant received in connection with his guilty plea to two counts of first-degree felony murder. The district court imposed consecutive hard twenty-five life sentences, meaning that Defendant would not be eligible for parole for fifty years. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by refusing to run his sentences consecutive to each other. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that neither Defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, his expression of remorse, or other considerations led to the conclusion that the district court’s decision was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. View "State v. Brune" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence Defendant received in connection with his guilty plea to two counts of first-degree felony murder. The district court imposed consecutive hard twenty-five life sentences, meaning that Defendant would not be eligible for parole for fifty years. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by refusing to run his sentences consecutive to each other. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that neither Defendant’s acceptance of responsibility, his expression of remorse, or other considerations led to the conclusion that the district court’s decision was arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. View "State v. Brune" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for resentencing, in which Defendant argued that Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), rendered his hard forty sentence unconstitutional.After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison with no possibility of parole for forty years. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence in 2007. In 2016, Defendant filed a motion for resentencing, asserting that his sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to Alleyne. The district court construed Defendant’s motion as a collateral challenge under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 and concluded that Defendant was not entitled to relief because Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to a sentence that was final when Alleyne was decided. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that whether Defendant’s pleading was construed as a motion to correct an illegal sentence or a collateral attack under section 60-1507(b), Defendant was not entitled to relief because Alleyne did not render his sentence unconstitutional. View "State v. Albright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for resentencing, in which Defendant argued that Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), rendered his hard forty sentence unconstitutional.After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison with no possibility of parole for forty years. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence in 2007. In 2016, Defendant filed a motion for resentencing, asserting that his sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to Alleyne. The district court construed Defendant’s motion as a collateral challenge under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 and concluded that Defendant was not entitled to relief because Alleyne cannot be applied retroactively to a sentence that was final when Alleyne was decided. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that whether Defendant’s pleading was construed as a motion to correct an illegal sentence or a collateral attack under section 60-1507(b), Defendant was not entitled to relief because Alleyne did not render his sentence unconstitutional. View "State v. Albright" on Justia Law