Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff retained Defendant, a criminal defense attorney, to represent him in a probation revocation proceeding. The district court eventually accepted Plaintiff’s stipulation to violating probation, revoked his probation, and ordered him to serve his originally imposed prison term. An error in the journal entry of sentencing, however, led to Plaintiff serving more time in prison than his original sentence. Plaintiff filed a petition for legal malpractice against Defendant. Plaintiff obtained a default judgment, but the district court set aside the default judgment and dismissed the lawsuit because Plaintiff had not established his innocence under the exoneration rule. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court erred in setting aside the default judgment for excusable neglect. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the default judgment pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-260(b)(6) ; but (2) erred in dismissing the lawsuit based on the Court’s holding in Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services with respect to the exoneration rule and the running of the statute of limitations. View "Garcia v. Ball" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of abuse of a child, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, aiding and abetting aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and promoting obscenity to a minor. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting Defendant’s female cousin’s testimony about past sexual abuse as propensity evidence; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence at trial as to each element of the crime of aggravated indecent liberties with a child; and (3) the district court erred in finding a witness was unavailable to testify at trial and admitting her preliminary hearing testimony, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Page" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated sexual battery, and aggravated burglary. Defendant’s lawyer subsequently filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial judge denied. Defendant also filed a pro se motion, which the district judge construed as a motion for new trial. In his motion, Defendant argued, in relevant part, that his lawyer had failed to put on evidence in Defendant’s defense. Characterizing Defendant’s arguments as allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the district judge concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the court of appeals said that Defendant could challenge his trial counsel’s effectiveness through a later motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507. Defendant subsequently filed a section 60-1507 motion, arguing that his trial counsel had been ineffective in several respects. After an evidentiary hearing, the district judge denied Defendant relief. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) conflict existed between Defendant and his lawyer at the hearing on the motion for new trial; and (2) Defendant’s remaining allegations were without merit. View "Fuller v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of domestic battery, which was treated as a person felony based on Defendant’s criminal history. The district court imposed the minimum ninety-day confinement required by statute, followed by twenty-four months of probation. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that a district court may impose up to sixty months of probation on persons convicted of felony domestic battery in accordance with Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6608(c)(6). Defendant appealed, arguing that he could only be sentenced to twelve months of probation pursuant to the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in the absence of a statutory limit, the duration of the probation term for felony domestic battery is a probation condition within the district court’s discretion; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Defendant to serve twenty-four months of probation. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

In 2000, at the age of eighteen, Defendant was convicted as an adult of murder. In 2012, Defendant filed a second petition for collateral relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of due process because he was convicted while mentally incompetent. Although Defendant’s motion was entitled “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence,” the district court deemed the motion a collateral challenge under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 and assigned it both a civil case number and a criminal case number. In the civil case, the court summarily denied the motion, determining that the pleading was both untimely and successive. In the criminal case, the court dismissed the motion, concluding that it was without merit. Defendant filed two notices of appeal, one to the Court of Appeals from the civil decision and one to the Supreme Court from the criminal caption. The Court of Appeals affirmed. In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that his conviction amounted to a denial of due process because, at the time of trial, he was a juvenile who suffered from a mental defect that rendered him incompetent. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that because Defendant's claim was procedural, not jurisdictional, Defendant could not prevail in his claim that his sentence was illegal. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder. The district court imposed the mandated sentence of lifetime imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not err when it failed to order sua sponte a competency evaluation; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to inquire further into Defendant’s reasons for filing motions requesting the appointment of new counsel; and (3) Defendant’s claim that the district court judge allegedly misspoke during his reading of the instructions to the jury was without merit. View "State v. Marshall" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy involving his three-year-old twin daughters. The bulk of the evidence at trial against Defendant was Defendant’s admissions to others, including law enforcement, that he had committed the offenses. Defendant received four life sentences. The court of appeals affirmed all four convictions. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant’s convictions for aggravated indecent liberties with a child and the consecutive life sentences imposed for them, holding, inter alia, that Defendant’s confessions concerning one victim were sufficiently truthworthy to establish the corpus delicti; but (2) reversed both aggravated criminal sodomy convictions, holding that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on alternative means of committing that crime without supporting evidence for each means presented to the jury, and the court of appeals erred in applying the invited error doctrine to preserve those convictions. View "State v. Dern" on Justia Law

The State filed a complaint charging Defendant with one count of felony theft by deception. Both parties submitted instructions to the trial court setting out the elements of theft by unauthorized control. The jury found Defendant guilty of felony theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the conviction was the result of error invited by both parties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the parties never raised on appeal the discrepancy between the charge and the instruction, and therefore, the case must be analyzed on the terms that the parties argued it, as a matter of whether the evidence sufficed to sustain a conviction for theft by deception; and (2) considered from a sufficiency of the evidence perspective, the evidence was insufficient to convict Defendant of theft by deception. View "State v. Laborde" on Justia Law

The State charged Appellant with multiple offenses related to the murders of six women. The murders constituted parts of a common scheme or course of conduct. Appellant was sentenced to death for his convictions for two counts of capital murder. On appeal, Appellant raised nineteen general claims of reversible error covering the entire trial proceedings, as well as a variety of sub-claims. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Appellant’s capital murder conviction charged in Count II; (2) reversed Appellant’s capital murder conviction charged in Count III and his first-degree murder conviction charged in Count V as unconstitutionally multiplicitous with the capital murder conviction in Count II; (3) affirmed the remainder of Appellant’s convictions; (4) affirmed Appellant’s sentence of death under his capital murder conviction in Count II; and (5) vacated the portion of Appellant’s sentence designating certain of his crimes sexually motivated and remanded for a correction of the journal entry. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery. The district court sentenced Defendant to 172 months in prison. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentence. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the district court did not err by classifying two of Defendant’s pre-Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) convictions for attempted rape and aggravated burglary as person felonies; but (2) the classification as a person felony of Defendant’s third pre-KSA conviction for burglary was unconstitutional because it was based on a fact that was never proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Luarks" on Justia Law