Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to nine months’ imprisonment, awarding him credit for his nearly twelve months of pretrial confinement, and imposing eighteen months’ probation. The court of appeals did not address whether sentencing Defendant to probation was in error and in violation of his double jeopardy rights, ruling that his sentence was a presumptive one under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act and thus beyond judicial review. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, holding (1) Defendant was not challenging a presumptive sentence, so review was appropriate; and (2) because Defendant’s sentence of confinement had already been served, probation was improper. View "State v. Kinder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary denial of Defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504(1), thus rejecting Defendant’s argument that his sentence was illegal because he was subjected to unequal treatment in a manner constitutionally prohibited. The district court summarily denied Defendant’s motion. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was entitled to a new sentencing hearing under Kan. Stat. 21-6620(e). The Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the merits of Defendant’s argument regarding section 21-6620, holding (1) a defendant cannot raise constitutional challenges to a sentence via a section 22-3504(1) motion; and (2) as to any other issues, Defendant has waived or abandoned those arguments. View "State v. Amos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and illegal use of a communication facility but vacated the portion of Defendant’s sentence imposing lifetime postrelease supervision and remanded the case for resentencing. The court held (1) the district court did not err when it did denied Defendant’s request to provide the jury with a lesser included offense instruction of voluntary manslaughter; but (2) the district court imposed illegal sentences in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3717 when it ordered lifetime postrelease supervision. View "State v. Ruiz-Ascencio" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary denial of Defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504(1), rejecting each of Defendant’s claims of error. The court held (1) Defendant was not entitled to resentencing based on State v. Murdock, 323 P.3d 846 (Kan. 2014), which was overruled by State v. Keel, 357 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2015); (2) the application of Keel to Defendant’s motion does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the federal Constitution; (3) the classification of Defendant’s prior offenses as person/nonperson offenses does not violate the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution; and (4) the district court did not deprive Defendant of a statutory right to a hearing when it summarily denied relief. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for fifty years for first-degree premeditated murder. The court held (1) the district judge’s decision to discharge a juror and substitute an alternate juror during deliberations was not in error; (2) the prosecutor did not exceed the latitude permitted him in discussing the evidence of this case and did not misstate the law during closing argument; and (3) the district judge’s pronouncement of the hard fifty sentence did not create an illegal ambiguity in the length of Defendant’s sentence or violate Defendant’s statutory right to be present at sentencing. View "State v. Hilt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. The State agreed to recommend to the sentencing court that the sentences for both offenses be ordered to run concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of life in prison with parole eligibility after twenty-five years. The sentencing court imposed a hard twenty-five life sentence for the first-degree premeditated murder but erroneously stated the applicable sentencing range for the attempted first-degree murder count. The court sentenced Defendant to serve 165 months in prison. Despite the parties’ joint recommendation, the court ran the sentences consecutively. When the court was made aware of the sentencing error, the court stated the correct presumptive sentencing range for the attempted murder conviction was 258 to 285 months and then granted Defendant’s request to depart downward to the original sentence of 165 months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred when it refused to follow the plea agreement’s recommendation by running his sentences concurrent to each other. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court’s decision was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. View "State v. Beck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s summary dismissal of Defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504, holding that Defendant’s sentence was not illegal.Defendant pled guilty to felony murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The district court denied Defendant’s pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, thus rejecting Defendant’s argument that each time the parole board passed him, it instituted a new and illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 22-3504 was inapplicable to Defendant’s argument because the denial of parole is not a sentence. View "State v. Buford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of failing to register as required by the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), holding that the retroactive application of KORA to Defendant did not amount to a retroactive punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute and to selling cocaine. While Defendant served her prison sentence, the Kansas Legislature amended KORA to require drug offenders such as Defendant to register. After Defendant was paroled, she was found guilty of failing to register and ordered to pay a $200 DNA database fee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) KORA’s registration requirements as applied to drug offenders are not punishment or subject to the limitations of the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2) Defendant’s original sentence was not illegal; and (3) the district court did not err when it ordered Defendant to pay the DNA database fee over her objection. View "State v. Simmons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for kidnapping, holding that prosecutorial error occurred when the prosecutor asserted that the alleged victim deserved consideration similar to the presumption of innocence constitutionally recognized for criminal defendants, and this error was not harmless.The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, concluding that the prosecutor improperly commented on the victim’s credibility but that the error was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence against Defendant. The Supreme Court disagreed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the State did not meet its burden of showing that there was no reasonable possibility that the prosecutor’s error contributed to the guilty verdict. View "State v. McBride" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the district court denying Appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw plea as well as his request to appoint new counsel connected with the requirement that Appellant register as a drug offender pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). On appeal, Appellant argued, in essence, that retroactively requiring him to register violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that KORA’s registration requirements as applied to drug offenders are not punishment and subject to the limitations of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and therefore, the district court properly disposed of Appellant’s request. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law