Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant pled guilty to multiple felony charges and was sentenced to sixty-eight months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, asserting that his criminal history score should not have included an Oklahoma nonperson felony because he received a deferred judgment for that crime, which did not constitute a conviction for criminal history scoring purposes. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the invited error doctrine barred Appellant’s challenge to his criminal history score. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant illegal sentence challenge was subject to appellate review; and (2) a successfully completed Oklahoma deferred judgment is not to be counted as a conviction when calculating a Kansas criminal history score. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Hankins" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of rape. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment with lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime registration as a sex offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). Defendant appealed, arguing that the requirement of lifetime registration as a sex offender is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment in violation of section 9 of the Kansas Bill of Rights and the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that lifetime registration as a sex offender pursuant to KORA does not qualify as punishment for either section 9 or Eighth Amendment purposes. View "State v. Petersen-Beard" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of indecent liberties with a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment and lifetime post-release supervision. The court further ordered Defendant to register as an offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) for his lifetime, finding that this was Defendant’s second conviction based upon a prior juvenile adjudication. Defendant appealed, arguing that his juvenile adjudication could not count as a prior conviction to enhance the time period of registration. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court erred in imposing a lifetime registration term but that the 2011 amended registration term of twenty-five years, rather than the ten-year registration term in effect when Defendant committed his crime, could be applied retroactively to Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Ex Post Factor Clause precludes the retroactive application of the 2011 version of KORA to any sex offender who committed the qualifying offense prior to July 1, 2011. View "State v. Buser" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of reckless aggravated battery, felony criminal damage to property, and criminal threat. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment and required him to register as a violent offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and vacated his registration requirement, holding (1) the trial court did not commit clear error in instructing the jury on the lesser included reckless aggravated battery instruction; (2) reckless aggravated battery is not an alternative means crime, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (3) the registration requirement qualified as punishment under the Due Process Clause and required a jury finding of his use of a deadly weapon, and because no such finding was made here, the registration requirement must be vacated. View "State v. Charles" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated burglary. The district court sentenced Appellant to life for the murder conviction, fifty-nine months for aggravated arson, and thirty-two months for aggravated burglary. The court sentenced all sentences to run consecutively and imposed $108,427 in restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) concluding that consecutive sentences were proportionate to the harm and culpability associated with Appellant’s convictions and ordering Defendant’s sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently; and (2) ordering restitution. View "State v. Shank" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple crimes, including felony murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life plus 142 months. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant’s convictions were not reversible under the speedy trial statute; (2) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s Batson challenge; (3) Defendant ’s argument about the voluntariness of his statements during a postarrest custodial interview was unpreserved for appeal; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting emergency room photos, autopsy photos, and crime scene photos. View "State v. Dupree" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional first-degree murder, felony murder, and related crimes. The district court imposed a life sentence with a minimum of fifty years for the first-degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his hard fifty life sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for a mistrial, which asserted that Defendant had been prejudiced by the introduction of certain out-of-court statements; (3) assuming that the district court erred in instructing the jury on an aiding and theory, Defendant invited any error by requesting the instruction; and (4) Defendant’s hard fifty life sentence was improperly imposed in light of Alleyne v. United States. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Logsdon" on Justia Law

In 2000, Defendant pled guilty to felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. In 2011, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(d). The district court dismissed the motion without considering the merits due to Defendant’s late filing and his failure to show excusable neglect. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Defendant did not establish excusable neglect for the untimely filing of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and by dismissing Defendant’s motion as untimely without considering its merits. View "State v. Davisson" on Justia Law

Defendant, along with her codefendant husband, entered a no contest plea to one count of unlawful distribution of a drug precursor and one count of unlawful possession of a drug precursor. Defense counsel did not file a timely direct appeal. After successfully seeking a sentence reduction under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507, Defendant appealed. The court of appeals remanded to the district court for a hearing under State v. Ortiz, which permits untimely appeals when one of three exceptions applies. The district judge ruled that none of the Ortiz exceptions applied. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the third Ortiz exception applied to Defendant’s case because she was furnished an attorney for appeal who failed to perfect or complete the appeal. The court further ruled in Defendant’s favor on the merits of her challenge to her sentence for unlawful distribution of a drug precursor. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals’ decision on the Ortiz issue; and (2) did not reach the issue of whether the identical offense doctrine should be applied to reduce Defendant’s sentence for unlawful distribution of a drug precursor because the State did not contest the court’s ruling on the merits of the doctrine. View "State v. Perry" on Justia Law

Defendant, along with his codefendant wife, entered a no contest plea to unlawful distribution of a drug precursor and unlawful possession of a drug precursor. Defense counsel did not file a timely direct appeal. After successfully seeking a sentence reduction under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507, Defendant appealed. The court of appeals remanded to the district court for a hearing under State v. Ortiz, which permits untimely appeals when one of three exceptions applies. The district court concluded that none of the Ortiz exceptions applied in Defendant’s case, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the third Ortiz exception applied to Defendant’s case because he was furnished an attorney for appeal who failed to perfect or complete the appeal. Remanded. View "State v. Shelly" on Justia Law