Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to felony murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Consistent with the plea agreement, defense counsel and the State requested concurrent sentences. The sentencing judge sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for the felony-murder conviction and 117 months for the conspiracy conviction. The judge decided not to follow the plea agreement, ordering instead that the sentences be consecutively served. Defendant appealed, arguing that the sentencing judge abused his discretion by not following the parties' recommendation that Defendant’s sentences be served concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the facts of this case, a reasonable person could agree with the sentencing judge’s conclusion that consecutive sentences were appropriate. View "State v. Mosher" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape of a child and one count of sexual exploitation of a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of twenty-five years for his rape of a child conviction and imposed lifetime postrelease supervision for both convictions. Defendant appealed the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of his sexual exploitation sentence. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the sexual exploitation sentence, holding that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment; and (2) vacated sua sponte the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of Defendant’s rape sentence, holding that the district court erred in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision for Defendant’s rape conviction as part of sentencing him to an off-grid indeterminate life sentence. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and endangering a child for fatally shooting his ex-wife while his daughter watched nearby. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years to life for the murder conviction and to concurrent one-year jail terms for his child endangerment conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support both of Defendant’s convictions; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct, where the prosecutor committed misconduct in his rebuttal closing argument but the error did not require reversal. View "State v. Schumacher" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled no contest to two counts of felony murder and one count of aggravated arson. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to the three charges. The district judge denied the motion, concluding that Defendant failed to show that manifest injustice would result if he was unable to withdraw his pleas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to inquire explicitly at Defendant’s plea hearing about promises made to Defendant; (2) Defendant’s defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (3) the record did not support Defendant’s assertion that he did not understand the meaning and consequences of a no contest plea. View "State v. Morris" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted rape, attempted second-degree murder, and aiding a felon. The district court judge sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment and ordered restitution to remain open for thirty days. Subsequently, the district court judge ordered Appellant to pay more than $32,000 in restitution, including relocation expenses incurred by the victim of the attempted rape. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order of restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to set the amount of Appellant’s restitution; and (2) substantial competent evidence supported the district court judge’s inclusion of moving expenses for the victim of the attempted rape. View "State v. Hall" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary for attacking Otis Webb at his home and stealing $950 from Webb’s pockets. During the altercation, Webb knocked a cap off the head of one of the attackers, and DNA collected from the cap connected Defendant to the incident. A jury found Defendant guilty on both counts. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence, including testimony that Defendant intended to commit a theft as he “remained within” Webb’s house, proved the alternative means of aggravated burglary as charged by the State; (2) the district judge did not err by denying Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the baseball cap from evidence or by ruling that there was a reasonable certainty the cap had not been materially altered; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request to instruct the jury on battery as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery; and (4) under the circumstances, the district court was not without jurisdiction to enter an order of restitution twenty-eight days after Defendant’s sentencing hearing. View "State v. Frierson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and sexual exploitation of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions but vacated Appellant’s sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting into evidence Appellant’s prior conviction for indecent liberties with a child and two home videotapes; (2) the district court issued an erroneous limiting instruction, but the instruction was not clearly erroneous; (3) Appellant waived his allegation of error on Confrontation Clause grounds by failing to timely and specifically object on that basis; (4) the prosecutor improperly speculated on facts not in evidence during his rebuttal closing argument, but the error did not require reversal; and (5) the sentencing court improperly imposed a mandatory minimum sentence instead of departing to a guidelines sentence after granting Appellant’s motion to depart. Remanded. View "State v. Dean" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of eight of nine counts each of aggravated burglary and misdemeanor theft. The sentencing judge ordered Appellant to pay restitution “as contained within the presentence report,” and the presentence report indicated that restitution for one of the victims was “to be determined.” Three weeks later, the court entered a restitution order that (1) set the amount for the victim at $1,192, and (2) included restitution for the victim on the charges that led to acquittal. The court of appeals panel affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentence but vacated the restitution order for the victim named in the charges that led to the acquittals. The Supreme Court affirmed except for vacating the district court’s order of $1,192 in restitution, holding that the judge lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order for additional restitution. View "State v. Charles" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of rape and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The ages of both the victim and the defendant form an essential part of the elements of the off-grid versions of rape and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. While the elements jury instructions did not include Appellant’s age, the jury answered in the affirmative to special questions on the verdict forms as to whether Appellant was eighteen years old or older at the time the offenses were committed. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions but vacated erroneous portions of Appellant’s sentences, holding (1) the district court’s failure to include the element of age in the jury instructions on the crimes’ elements and submitting the same to the jury as special questions on the verdict forms was harmless error; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument, but the misconduct did not constitute reversible error; (3) sufficient evidence supported the convictions; and (4) the portions of Appellant’s sentences ordering lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime electronic monitoring were outside the jurisdiction of the district court. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

In 1995, Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder and aggravated robbery for crimes Appellant committed when he was fourteen years old. Approximately twelve years later, Appellant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Appellant also argued that his aggravated robbery sentence was illegal because his juvenile adjudications were used both to certify him for adult prosecution and to compute his criminal history score. The district court denied Appellant’s motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to demonstrate the manifest injustice required by Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210(d) to withdraw his guilty pleas; and (2) Appellant’s aggravated robbery sentence, which was within the presumptive sentence for that crime based on Appellant’s criminal history score, was not illegal. View "State v. Kelly" on Justia Law