Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A.D.T., a juvenile, pled guilty to first-degree premeditated murder, completed the incarceration portion of his juvenile sentence and was placed on conditional release. A.D.T. subsequently violated his conditional release by twice testing positive for drugs. The district court revoked his juvenile sentence and imposed his adult sentence of life imprisonment. A.D.T. appealed, arguing that manifest injustice was caused to his constitutional rights. The State counted that the district court strictly complied with the provisions of Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2364(b) governing the revocation of A.D.T.’s juvenile sentence and the invocation of his adult sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was not manifestly unjust for the district court to impose A.D.T.’s adult sentence for the positive urinalysis tests where (1) although A.D.T. did not receive the recommended substance abuse treatment while in the juvenile correctional facility, that circumstance cannot trump the plain language of section 38-2364(b); and (2) A.D.T. had fair notice and warning that, if he failed another drug test, he was facing a hard twenty-five life sentence as an adult. View "In re A.D.T." on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for felony murder and a term of fifteen years to life for aggravated robbery. The district court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to each other and to sentences imposed in separate cases in Saline County and Geary county. This appeal concerned the Saline County District Court’s summary dismissal of Defendant’s fourth motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the sentencing judge’s pronouncement of consecutive sentence was not ambiguous; and (2) Defendant failed to show that his consecutive sentencing illegally failed to conform to statutory provisions. View "State v. Swafford" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to a hard forty life sentence. Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence claiming that his sentence was illegal because was based on an incorrect criminal history score and that his due process rights were violated when his sentence was imposed based on that error. After a hearing, the district court concluded that Appellant’s criminal history did contain an error but that resentencing was unnecessary because an illegal sentence was not created by this error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hard forty sentencing determination in Appellant’s case did not turn on his criminal history classification and conformed to the then-controlling statutory provision; and (2) Appellant’s due process claim was not cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "State v. Kingsley" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of sale of cocaine and was sentenced under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA). In calculating Defendant’s criminal history score, the sentencing court classified as a person crime a 1990 felony adjudication for burglary. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the classification of the felony adjudication for burglary was error under State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015) (Dickey I), which held that pre-KSGA convictions and juvenile adjudications of burglary under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3715 must be classified as nonperson felonies. The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated Defendant’s sentence based on Dickey I, holding that the sentencing court improperly classified Defendant’s 1990 burglary adjudication as a person felony, resulting in an incorrect criminal history score and an illegal sentence. The court remanded for resentencing with directions to reclassify the 1990 burglary adjudication as a nonperson felony. View "State v. Donaldson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of a 1993 aggravated robbery and sentenced under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA). The sentencing court, in calculating Defendant’s criminal history score, classified as person felonies three residential burglary offenses that Defendant committed in the late 1980s. Defendant filed a motion to correct his aggravated robbery sentence, arguing that the offenses were misclassified. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to have the offenses classified as nonperson offenses under State v. Murdock, 323 P.3d 846 (Kan. 2014); (2) Defendant was not entitled to have the offense classified as nonperson offenses under State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015); (3) the KSGA’s person/nonperson classification of pre-KSGA offenses does not violate the Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on nonjury factual findings that increase a defendant’s sentence; and (4) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion without a hearing. View "State v. Collier" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded no contest to capital murder and attempted murder. The district court concluded there was a sufficient factual basis to support findings of guilt on the two charges and accepted Appellant’s no contest plea. Before he was sentenced, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Appellant failed to establish good cause for withdrawing his no contest plea. On appeal, Appellant argued that he met the good-cause burden by showing he was misinformed about how his no contest plea might affect his ability to pursue double jeopardy arguments on appeal, and therefore, his plea was not knowingly entered. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to withdraw his no contest plea. View "State v. Reu-El" on Justia Law

More than thirteen years after he was sentenced to life for second-degree murder, Appellant filed a pro se motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504 to correct an illegal sentence. In his motion, Appellant claimed that his sentence was illegal because the district court failed to include a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense to first-degree murder. The district court denied the motion. On appeal, Appellant claimed that the district court should have construed his pro se pleading as being a motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 22-3504(1) was the wrong vehicle to challenge the alleged instruction error, and a section 60-1507 motion was untimely; and (2) further, Appellant’s failure to request an instruction on voluntary manslaughter erected a considerable obstacle to obtaining relief. View "State v. Ditges" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and theft. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a hard fifty life sentence for murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not commit reversible error when it excluded evidence of the victim’s other computer dating contacts; (2) the prosecutor did not engage in error during closing argument; (3) the evidence was sufficient to prove the conviction for aggravated burglary; (4) the district court’s limitation of voir dire questioning did not deprive Defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial; and (5) the State provided Defendant with constitutionally satisfactory notice that it would seek a hard fifty sentence. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment for felony murder but concluded that no enforceable restitution judgment existed against Defendant. Defendant appealed the summary denial of three pro se motions, arguing that his sentence was illegal and that restitution was wrongfully collected during his imprisonment. The court held (1) no enforceable restitution judgment existed against Defendant, and the wrongful collection of restitution likely arose from a clerical error; (2) Defendant’s offenses were properly classified as person felonies; and (3) Defendant’s sentence was not illegal. The court remanded for a hearing and correction of the clerical mistake. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of two alternative counts of capital murder based on either the rape or the kidnapping of eight-year-old A.I., an alternative count of premeditated first-degree murder, and rape. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment with the exception of Defendant’s rape conviction, which the court reversed. The court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination that Defendant premeditated A.I.’s killing; (2) prosecutorial error in closing argument did not require reversal; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his confession; (4) there was no error in the omission of additional unanimity language in the jury instructions; and (5) because rape is an element of Defendant’s conviction for capital murder, he is punished for it to the extent the capital conviction stands. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law