Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated robbery. Before trial, the State moved for a determination as to the admissibility of Defendant’s inculpatory statements to police. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which Defendant had the opportunity to challenge the voluntariness of the statements. The district court allowed the statements to be admitted. After he was convicted and sentenced, Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress inculpatory statements he made to the police, and (2) structural error occurred when he was not allowed to testify in support of his motion to reconsider the trial court’s earlier ruling that his statements to police were voluntarily given. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in determining that Defendant’s statements to the police were voluntary and knowingly given; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant a second opportunity to testify and his request proffer his testimony at the motion to reconsider. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction but vacated his sentence, holding that Kansas’ hard fifty sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution as interpreted in Alleyne v. United States and Ring v. Arizona because it permits a judge to find by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of one or more aggravating factors necessary to impose an increased mandatory minimum sentence, rather than requiring a jury to find the existence of the aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Soto" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court denied Defendant his right under the Sixth Amendment to have the effective assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him when the court denied Defendant’s pro se motions for a new trial without first appointing new conflict-free counsel to assist Defendant in arguing the motions. Remanded for appointment of new counsel and instructions to hold a new holding on Defendant’s pro se motions for new trial. View "State v. Sharkey" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of no contest to felony murder, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. Appellant docketed his appeal from his sentence and then filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea. Thereafter, Appellant withdrew his motion because his case was pending on appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently vacated the sentence, and the district court resentenced Appellant. That same day, Appellant filed a renewed motion in district court seeking leave to withdraw the no contest plea. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a defendant may move to withdraw a guilty plea after a cases is remanded from the appellate courts for resentencing; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant’s motion failed under either the good-cause or the manifest-injustice standard. View "State v. Fritz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. The sentencing court sentenced Appellant to a hard twenty-five life sentence for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) the district court did not err in instructing the jury; (2) sufficient evidence supported the murder conviction; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial based on a juror’s statement mentioning gang involvement; and (4) because no errors were committed in this case, the cumulative error doctrine did not apply. View "State v. Betancourt" on Justia Law

In 1996, Appellant was convicted of one count of felony murder and one count of aggravated battery. As part of Appellant’s sentence, the sentencing court ordered Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $119,900. No restitution was ever collected from Appellant. In 2009, a private corporation sent Appellant a notice that he had outstanding court fines and that he had to pay $150,904 immediately. Appellant filed a pro se motion requesting release from the restitution order based on dormancy. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Appellant’s restitution was not yet due, reasoning that restitution cannot be enforced against a defendant while the defendant is incarcerated. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the district court did not enter an enforceable restitution judgment when it sentenced Appellant; and (2) because there was no pending judgment ordering Appellant to pay restitution, the district court had no jurisdiction to release an obligation on his part. View "State v. Alderson" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with possession of methamphetamine after law enforcement officers stopped Defendant’s vehicle based on a turn signal violation, searched the vehicle because they detected a very strong odor of alcohol coming from within the vehicle, and discovered methamphetamine during the search. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the warrantless search. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the strong odor of alcohol emanating from within the vehicle established probable cause for the officers to search the vehicle for an open container of alcohol. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the search was unlawful because the officers failed to acquire additional inculpatory facts relating to the crime being investigated before commencing their search of the vehicle. View "State v. Stevenson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and sentenced to hard twenty-five life sentences imposed under Jessica’s Law. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to give a unanimity jury instruction; (2) the district court abused its discretion in handling Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on a law enforcement officer’s violation of an order in limine when the officer volunteered that Defendant invoked his postarrest right to remain silent and described the circumstances of that invocation because Defendant’s constitutional rights were violated by the officer’s testimony; and (3) the cumulative impact of these errors substantially prejudiced Defendant’s right to a fair trial. View "State v. Santos-Vega" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of serious sex offenses perpetrated against his four-year-old granddaughter. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant penetrated the child victim’s labia with his finger, which would support the sexual intercourse element of rape; and (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s request to have a psychological evaluation performed on the victim, as Defendant failed to establish any valid reason that would support a finding of compelling circumstances to warrant a psychological examination of the sex abuse victim in this case. View "State v. Eddy" on Justia Law

In 1988, Defendant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for aggravated robbery and first-degree murder. The sentences were ordered to run consecutive to each other and to the sentences not yet imposed in another case pending against Defendant - 87 CR 412. Twenty-three years later, Defendant filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming a speedy trial violation and that the sentencing court improperly ordered his sentences to run consecutive to the sentences not yet imposed in 87 CR 412. The district court summarily denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Defendant’s speedy trial claim could not be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence; and (2) the sentencing court erred by running the sentences in this case consecutive to his sentences in 87 CR 412 because those sentences did not yet exist, but because Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4608(4) required consecutive sentences in this case if Defendant committed the crimes while on release in 87 CR 412, and because the court could not determine from the record whether Defendant was on release at the time he committed these offenses, the case must be remanded. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law