Print Page | Contact Us | Sign In | Register
Appellate Court Digests
Blog Home All Blogs
@@WEBSITE_ID@@

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: Attorney Discipline  Sedgwick District  Wyandotte District  Sedgwick  statutes  constitutional law  Johnson  Johnson District  Saline District  Shawnee District  Douglas District  Leavenworth District  Reno  Reno District  Riley  Shawnee  Wyandotte  Finney District  Lyon  sentencing  8802  administrative law  Barton District  Bourbon District  Clay District  criminal procedure  disbarment  Dissent  habeas corpus  juries 

November 16, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, November 19, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

CRIMINAL

criminal procedure—restitution—sentences
state v. martin
Leavenworth district court—judgment vacated and case remanded; court of appeals—reversed
no. 115,651—november 16, 2018

FACTS:  Martin was charged with offenses related to false charges and threatening behavior against a woman and child Martin lived with while the woman’s military husband was deployed. Martin pled nolo contendere to two counts of interfering with law enforcement by falsely reporting a crime, and State dismissed all remaining counts. Sentence imposed included $10,800 restitution order. Martin appealed, claiming in part the district court erred in not granting her request for a separate hearing to challenge the restitution to resolve discrepancies in woman’s and husband’s victim impact statements, and to determine if claimed expenses ($30-40,000) were directly related to Martin’s crime of conviction. Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Martin was present at two sentencing hearings which included the issue of restitution. Martin’s petition for review granted.

ISSUE:  Restitution

HELD:  A convicted criminal defendant has a statutory right to have a hearing on the question of restitution, if desired. Under facts in this case, district court should have given Martin a separate hearing on the restitution issue. District court specifically denied Martin an opportunity at the sentencing hearings to be heard on the restitution causation issue. District court also failed to limit the claims to damages caused by Martin’s crimes, and instead summarily held the appropriate amount of restitution as set forth by victims exceeded Martin’s ability to pay. Reversed and remanded for district court to conduct a restitution hearing consistent with holding in State v. Meeks, 307 Kan. 813 (2018).

STATUTE:  K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6607(c)(2), 22-3424(d)(1) - 3424(e)(3)

Kansas Court of Appeals

CRIMINAL

constitutional law—criminal law—fourth amendment—statutes
state v. lees
sumner district court—affirmed
no. 119,052—november 16, 2018

FACTS:  Highway trooper stopped Lees’ car for having a left rear brake light out.  The stop resulted in Lees’ arrest for DUI and operating a vehicle without a court ordered ignition lock.  Lees filed motion to suppress all evidence obtained through an illegal stop, arguing his functioning center and right rear brake lights satisfied K.S.A. 8-1708(a) which require two working brake lights.  State argued the trooper’s mistake about the brake lights was objectively reasonable, and stop was lawful under the trooper’s inspection power as authorized in K.S.A. 8-1759a.  District court granted the motion, finding the trooper had no legal grounds to stop Lee’s vehicle whose brake lights complied with Kansas law, and the trooper’s mistake of law in this instance was not objectively reasonable.  District court also found K.S.A. 8-1759a did not authorize the stop.  State filed interlocutory appeal.

ISSUES:  (1) Fourth Amendment—traffic stop; (2) statutory inspection authority

HELD:  Trooper made a mistake of law on whether Lees committed a traffic infraction for brake light violation. In light of 10 year-old holding in Martin v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 285 Kan. 625 (2008), trooper’s mistake was not objectively reasonable. This traffic stop was an unreasonable seizure in violation of Fourth Amendment, and exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence resulting from the illegal stop. 

K.S.A. 8-1579a authorizes a trooper to stop a vehicle for inspection and to issue a written notice of defect to the driver only if the vehicle is in unsafe condition or if any required equipment is missing or is not in proper repair or adjustment.  District court correctly found this authority does not extend to equipment that is outside what is already required by statute. 

STATUTE:  K.S.A. 8-1705, -1706, -1708, -1708(a), -1721, -1721(a), -1721(b), -1722, 1759, -1759a, -1759a(a), -1759a(b), -1759a(c), -1759a(d), 22-2402(1)

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

November 2, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, November 5, 2018

Kansas Court of Appeals

CIVIL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—FEDERAL PREEMPTION—PUBLIC UTILITIES—STATUTES
STATE v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
CHASE DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED
NO. 118,095—NOVEMBER 2 , 2018

FACTS: District court convicted Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) of violating K.S.A. 66-273 for blocking a roadway in Chase County for approximately four hours. The statute prohibits trains from standing on a public road in or near a city or town for more than 10 minutes. BNSF appealed on issues including whether the Kansas statute is preempted by the federal Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCT) and the Federal Railroad Safety Act.

ISSUE: Federal preemption of state law

HELD: The ICCTA pre-empts K.S.A. 66-273. BNSF’s conviction is reversed as a matter of law.  ICCT created the Surface Transportation Board (STB), giving it jurisdiction to regulate railroad transportation. While no court has addressed whether federal law preempts K.S.A. 66-273 or its predecessors, nearly all federal and state courts have concluded that state laws regulating how long a train can block a railroad crossing, and civil claims for alleged violations of state anti-blocking statutes, are preempted because they specifically target railroad operations.  Likewise, K.S.A. 66-273 infringes upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the STB because the statute specifically targets railroad carriers and has more than a remote or incidental effect on railroad operations.  

STATUTES: 49 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. and 10501(a)-(b) (2016); K.S.A. 66-273, -274

MUNICIPALITIES—PROPERTY
JAYHAWK RACING PROPERTIES V. CITY OF TOPEKA
SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 118,035—NOVEMBER 2, 2018

FACTS: In 2006, the City issued $10 million in Sales Tax and Revenue Bonds to finance improvements to Heartland Park racetrack. At the time the bonds were issued, the City owned Heartland Park in fee simple for a term of years, subject to Jayhawk Racing's reversionary interest. When the bonds failed to produce adequate revenue, the City indicated a desire to purchase Jayhawk Racing's reversionary interest in the property so that the City owned the facility outright. It was anticipating that this purchase would also be financed by the issuance of STAR bonds. But after an election changed the composition of the Topeka City Council, the City decided not to pursue the STAR bond sale. Without STAR bonds, there was no funding for the purchase of Jayhawk Racing's reversionary interest. Jayhawk Racing sued the City for breach of contract. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, finding that the City could not bind its successors to issue STAR bonds. Jayhawk Racing appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Nature of the contract; (2) enforceability of the contract; (3) cash-basis laws

HELD: Municipal corporations have both governmental and proprietary capacities. The contract to purchase Jayhawk Racing's reversionary interest was a proprietary contract akin to a purchase agreement. Because the contract is proprietary, future City Councils were bound by the agreement. The district court erred when it focused only on the method of funding. The contractual provision which provided for the issuance of bonds is an exception to the Cash-Basis and Budget Laws.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 10-1116(a); K.S.A. 10-1112, -1119, 12-3013(e)(1), 79-2935

PATERNITY—PROBATE
IN RE ESTATE OF FECHNER
GEARY DISTRICT COURT—VACATED AND REMANDED
NO. 118,809—NOVEMBER 2, 2018

FACTS: Chad Fechner died in 2014, intestate and with only one living heir, his aunt, Rita Young. She opened a probate estate and was surprised when Gary Fechner filed a claim alleging that he was Chad's half uncle. Rita questioned the accuracy of the birth certificate that Gary put forth as proof; there had been prior suggestions that Chad's father was the product of an extramarital affair, which would mean he did not share DNA with Gary. Rita asked the district court to order Gary to undergo DNA testing to prove his biological relationship to Chad. Gary objected, claiming there was no authority to order DNA testing in a probate case. The district court agreed, disallowed the DNA testing, and relied on Gary's evidence in proclaiming him an heir. Rita appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Ability to order DNA testing in a probate case

HELD: If Gary truly is the brother of Chad's father, he would be an heir under the probate code. The probate code defines "children" as "biological children" or as children whose parentage has been determined under the Kansas Parentage Act. The Kansas Parentage Act allows for biology, adoption, or a determination under the Parentage Act. In this case, there is no way to initiate a Parentage Act case because Chad's father died many years ago. The Code of Civil Procedure allows for DNA testing in a probate case. But the district court must make Parentage Act and Ross findings about whether such testing is warranted. The district court's mistake of law about its ability to order testing was an abuse of discretion. That court should reconsider Rita's request.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 23-2209(a), -2212(a), 60-235(a)(1), -235(a)(2); K.S.A. 59-501(a), -504, -508, -2212

JURISDICTION
ALLISON V. STATE
MONTGOMERY DISTRICT COURT—DISMISSED
NO. 114,607—NOVEMBER 2, 2018

FACTS: Allison was convicted of serious felonies, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. He then filed a motion for K.S.A. 60-1507 habeas corpus relief, claiming that trial counsel was ineffective. The district court appointed counsel for Allison and held an evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing, the district court denied Allison's motion, finding that trial counsel was constitutionally sufficient. Allison docketed an appeal and then asked for a remand to the district court under State v. Van Cleave so that he could argue that his K.S.A. 60-1507 counsel was ineffective. After the hearing, the district court concluded that Allison was prejudiced by ineffective counsel at his K.S.A. 60-1507 hearing, and that the only remedy was to hold a new hearing on that motion. The State appealed that ruling.

ISSUE: (1) Jurisdiction

HELD: It is undisputed that ruling being appealed here is not a final decision. It did not dispose of the entire merits of the issue at hand—whether Allison's trial counsel was ineffective. The hearing on the Van Cleave remand was only an intermediate step. Because the ruling is not final, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal at this time. The appeal is dismissed.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-1507(d), -2102(a)(4), -2102(c); K.S.A. 60-1507

CRIMINAL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL LAW—FOURTH AMENDMENT—SEARCH AND SEIZURE
STATE v. RITCHEY
SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 118,905—NOVEMBER 2, 2018

FACTS: Ritchey was arrested for an outstanding warrant while sitting as a front-seat passenger in a parked van. After Ritchey was out of the van and handcuffed, officer searched purse Ritchey left in the van and found drug residue. Ritchey was charged with possession of methamphetamine. She filed a motion to suppress, arguing the drug evidence was found during an illegal search of her purse. District court granted the motion, finding search of Ritchey’s purse was neither a search incident to arrest nor an inventory search. State filed interlocutory appeal, arguing the search was incident to the arrest, and even if illegal, the evidence would have been inevitably found during an inventory search at the jail. State also argued suppression did not advance purpose of the exclusionary rule.

ISSUE: Warrantless search of purse

HELD: District court properly suppressed evidence from the purse because State failed to show any exception for a warrantless search. Officers’ search of the purse was not a valid search incident to a lawful arrest where the purse was not on Ritchey’s person, there was no threat that Ritchey could use any weapons in her purse against the officers, and no possibility the purse contained evidence of her crime of arrest—an outstanding warrant. Next, applying rationale in State v. Baker, 306 Kan. 585 (2017), no showing that items within the closed purse would have inevitably been discovered where there was no evidence that police had policy to take items like the purse into possession for safekeeping, and no evidence the purse was sent along with Ritchey to the jail. Finally, State’s argument that suppression of the evidence in this case did not serve purpose of the exclusionary rule is rejected.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3603

Tags:  114607  118035  118095  118809  118905  Chase District  Geary District  Montgomery District  Shawnee District  Weekly11062018 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

October 26, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, October 29, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

CIVIL

ESTOPPEL—INSURANCE
BECKER V. THE BAR PLAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT–Remanded
COURT OF APPEALS—REVERSED
NO. 113,291— OCTOBER 26, 2018

FACTS: Becker made a series of loans to a business and hired Seck and Associates, a law firm, to help him with that process. The business faced financial difficulties and Becker claimed that Seck failed to find that the business' collateral was already subject to a properly filed security interest. After the business failed and the owner sought bankruptcy protection, Becker initiated proceedings against Seck's malpractice insurance carrier. Becker asked the Bar Plan, Sack's insurer, for a policy limits settlement offer of $300,000. The Bar Plan denied Seck's claim for coverage, pointing to her failure to timely notify the insurance company about a pending claim. Seck confessed judgment in excess of $3 million and assigned to Becker any right to sue the Bar Plan. Becker did sue, claiming bad faith. But the district court granted summary judgment to the Bar Plan and the court of appeals affirmed. Becker's petition for review was granted.

ISSUE: (1) Reservation of rights and estoppel;

HELD: Both the district court and court of appeals erred by focusing on the "expansion of coverage" rule. The courts should have instead determined whether estoppel was appropriate under the reservation of rights rule. The Bar Plan could have satisfied its duty to defend while also preserving any defenses of noncoverage through a timely reservation of rights. In this case, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Bar Plan timely reserved its rights. Accordingly, summary judgment was inappropriate and the case must be remanded for further findings of fact.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 60-256

criminal 

criminal procedure—motions—sentencing—statutes
state v. alford
sedgwick district court—affirmed
No. 117,270—october 26, 2018

FACTS: Alford was convicted in 1993 of first-degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm. State v. Alford, 257 Kan. 830 (1995). In 2016 he filed pro se motions to correct an illegal sentence. He claimed trial court violated K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4624(3) by permitting sentencing jury to consider murder victim’s written statement regarding an earlier aggravated battery, which was improper hearsay testimony in violation of due process and right of confrontation. He also claimed jury was wrongly instructed it needed to reach a unanimous verdict on the hard 15 sentence in violation of K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4524(5). District court summarily denied the motions. Alford appealed on both claims. 

ISSUE: Motion to correct an illegal sentence

HELD: Neither of Alford’s claims fits within the narrow definition of an illegal sentence, thus cannot be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Alford’s hearsay argument relies on K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4624(3)—a subsection devoted to establishing evidentiary rules—which does not qualify as the relevant statutory provision implicating an illegal sentence. And Alford’s unanimity claim is defeated by State v. Allison, 306 Kan. 80 (2017).

STATUTES: K.S.A.  2017 Supp. 22-3631; K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4624(3), -4624(5); K.S.A. 22-3414(3), -3504, -3504(1)

constitutional law—criminal procedure—evidence—juries—prosecutors
state v. williams
wyandotte district court—affirmed
No. 116,690—october 26, 2018

FACTS: William was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm. On appeal he claimed: (1) prosecutor’s closing remarks improperly called William’s testimony a fabrication; (2) State’s peremptory strikes of two jurors, and trial court’s overruling William’s claim of racial discrimination, violated Williams’ rights under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); (3) trial court erred in allowing overly gruesome autopsy photographs during testimony of State forensic pathologist; and (4) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Prosecutorial misconduct, (2) Batson challenge, (3) gruesome photographs, (4) cumulative error

HELD: Under facts in this case, prosecutor’s comments about Williams’ trustworthiness were within proper bounds. In context, prosecutor was advancing reasonable inferences based on physical evidence which supported the suggestion that Williams’ testimony was unbelievable. 

Second and third steps in Batson challenge are discussed. Under circumstances in this case, trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding the prosecutor had a valid, race-neutral reason to strike each juror.  

Autopsy photos in this case were graphically illustrative and unpleasant to view, but were not offered solely to inflame the jurors’ passions or prejudice.

Cumulative error claim is defeated by absence of any error. 

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5402, -6304, 22-3601(b)(4); K.S.A. 60-2101(b)

 

Tags:  113291  116690  117270  estoppel  insurance  Johnson District  Sedgwick District  Weekly10302018 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

October 19, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Kansas Court of Appeals

CIVIL

PARENTAGE—STANDING—STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
OSBORN V. ANDERSON
BOURBON DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 118,982—OCTOBER 19, 2018 

FACTS: Although he was not the biological father, Osborn signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity for A.O. Osborn and is also listed as A.O.'s father on the birth certificate. Osborn married A.O.'s mother, but the relationship quickly soured and the marriage was annulled. Sadly, A.O. was later killed by Mother's new boyfriend. Osborn filed a wrongful death petition against the boyfriend and DCF officials. Mother and DCF sought dismissal, claiming that Osborn lacked standing because he was not A.O.'s biological father. The district court agreed and summarily dismissed Osborn's suit for lack of standing. Osborn appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Standing; (2) authority to challenge paternity

HELD: Osborn has standing to pursue a wrongful death action only if he is A.O.'s legal father. The annulment between Osborn and Mother did not revoke Osborn's prior acknowledgement of parentage. In the absence of a timely, separate action to revoke the VAP, Osborn's acknowledgement of parentage remains valid even after the annulment. There is no statutory authority that would allow DCF to challenge Osborn's paternity.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 23-2204, -2204(b)(1), -2208(a), -2209(a), -2209(b), -2209(e), -2210(a); K.S.A. 60-1902

CHILD IN NEED OF CARE—JURISDICTION
IN RE K.L.B.
SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 118,563—OCTOBER 19, 2018

FACTS: Mother brought K.L.B. and another child to Kansas from Kentucky. After being in Kansas for a week, the children were taken into State custody. Mother did not contest the allegations in the child in need of care petition. After Kentucky declined jurisdiction over the children, Mother requested a hearing under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act to find out why. Mother was eventually extradited back to Kentucky on criminal charges. Her parental rights were terminated, and Mother appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Jurisdiction under the UCCJEA; (2) sufficiency of the evidence

HELD: There is no evidence that Kentucky ever attempted to initiate child in need of care proceedings for these children. But even in the absence of prior proceedings, Kansas could not acquire initial child-custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because Kansas was not the children's home state. However, the facts show that Kansas acquired jurisdiction on an emergency basis. Once Kentucky declined jurisdiction, Kansas was free to continue with this action. The district court's decision to terminate Mother's parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence and termination was in the children's best interests.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 23-37,102(b), -37,102(l), -37,201, -37,204, -37,204(a), -37,204(b), -37,204(c), 38-2203(b), -2250, -2269(a), -2269(b), -2269(c), -2271

ABUSE OF DISCRETION—CHILD IN NEED OF CARE
IN RE P.J.
SUMNER DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 119,264—OCTOBER 19, 2018

FACTS: P.J. and siblings came in to State custody after they showed signs of neglect and Mother had unexplained injuries that were consistent with aggravated battery. Mother's children were temporarily removed from her and placed in the care of their respective fathers. The children were adjudicated to be in need of care and left in the care of their fathers. Mother appealed this dispositional order.

ISSUES: (1) Standard of review; (2) sufficiency of the evidence

HELD: There is little precedent to suggest the appropriate standard of review to use when reviewing a dispositional hearing. Because the issues considered at a dispositional hearing are components of a best interests of the child finding, an abuse of discretion standard of review is appropriate. The evidence from the hearing showed that the children were doing fine in placements with their fathers and that the continued placement was appropriate. Because the children are placed with a parent, the district court is not required to decide about reintegration with Mother.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 38-2201(b), -2250, -2252, -2253, -2255, -2255(a), -2255(b), -2255(c), -2255(e), -2256, -2257, -2264, -2264(j), -2269

Tags:  abuse of discretion  Bourbon District  Child in Need of Care  parentage  Sedgwick District  statutory interpretation  Sumner District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

October 12, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

Attorney Discipline

ORDER OF PUBLISHED CENSURE
IN RE MICHAEL J. STUDTMANN
NO. 118,992 – OCTOBER 12, 2018

FACTS: A hearing panel determined that Studtmann violated Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2(c) (scope of representation), 1.5 (fees), 1.7(a) (conflict of interest), 1.8(f) (accepting compensation for representation of client from someone other than the client), and 1.16(d) (termination of representation). The complaint arose after Studtmann agreed to represent two individuals who were involved in a fatality automobile accident. Studtmann represented both clients without discussing with them the potential for a conflict of interest. Studtmann also spoke with his client's parents without obtaining her consent to release information to them. Both clients discharged Studtmann and obtained new counsel after a week of representation. Studtmann failed to promptly refund unearned fees to the client's parents.

HEARING PANEL: Based on the record and on stipulations made by the parties, the hearing panel determined that the fees charged by Studtmann during his time on this case were unreasonable. The panel also found numerous conflicts with Studtmann's joint representation and his dealings with his client's parents. The hearing panel believed that some of Studtmann's behavior was motivated by selfishness and it found that some of his answers at the hearing were misleading or deceptive. After noting several mitigating circumstances, the disciplinary administrator recommended discipline of a 90 day suspension. Studtmann made an initial request for probation before asking for an informal admonition. The hearing panel recommended discipline of published censure and also believed that Studtmann should be required to refund the entire retainer amount.

HELD: There were no exceptions to the hearing panel's final report. After noting that Studtmann had already refunded fees and agreed to an audit of his trust account, the disciplinary administrator recommended discipline of published censure. A majority of the court agreed. A minority of the court, troubled by the findings of Studtmann's dishonest testimony, would impose the 90-day suspension initially requested by the disciplinary administrator.

Kansas Court of Appeals

Criminal

EVIDENCE—SEARCH AND SEIZURE
STATE V. SALAZAR
MONTGOMERY DISTRICT COURT – REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 119,070 – OCTOBER 12, 2018 

FACTS: A motorcyclist was killed after he was hit by a van driven by Salazar. After the accident, Salazar was upset but gave law enforcement permission to get her driver's license out of her vehicle. While looking for the license, officers found Salazar's cell phone on the floor. An officer picked it up and looked at it; when asked by another officer, he said that he was just trying to determine if Salazar was texting at the time of the accident. During her later interrogation, Salazar gave officers permission to search her phone. That investigation showed that Salazar sent a text at the exact time of the accident. Officers eventually requested and received a search warrant for Salazar's phone. Salazar was charged with multiple counts, including one count of vehicular homicide. She filed a motion to suppress, claiming that the officer's initial search of her cell phone was illegal, tainting any further evidence recovered from the phone. The district court granted the motion, finding that officers conducted an invalid warrantless search of the phone. The State appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Plain view exception; (2) Attenuation doctrine; (3) Exclusionary rule

HELD: A warrant is generally required before the search of a cell phone. The officer's search of Salazar's phone was unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. The district court made no findings about whether the officer pressed a button on Salazar's phone in order to see the text messages, or whether they were immediately visible. But the district court's implicit finding that the officer did manipulate the phone into showing messages is supported by substantial competent evidence. Because the officer pressed a button in order to activate the phone, the plain view exception does not apply. The district court did not make the findings necessary to determine whether Salazar's consent to search her phone was voluntary and remote enough to allow for application of the attenuation doctrine. The attenuation doctrine can only apply if Salazar's consent was voluntary, and further findings of fact are required before that can be determined.

STATUTES: No statutes cited.

Tags:  Attorney Discipline  Montgomery District  search and seizure  Weekly10162018 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

October 3 and October 5, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

Attorney Discipline

ORDER OF DISBARMENT
IN THE MATTER OF JEAN MARIE BOBRINK
NO. 14,366—OCTOBER 3, 2018

FACTS: Jean Marie Bobrink, an attorney licensed to practice law in Kansas, voluntarily surrendered her license. At the time of surrender, there were two disciplinary complaints pending and she was operating under an active diversion agreement. Ms. Bobrink was disbarred in Missouri in January 2018.

HELD: The Court accepted the surrender and Ms. Bobrink is disbarred.

ORDER OF DISBARMENT
IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT E. ARNOLD, III
NO. 22,544—OCTOBER 3, 2018

FACTS: Robert E. Arnold voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas. At the time of surrender, a complaint was being investigated by the Disciplinary Administrator. The conduct which prompted the investigation in Kansas served as the basis for Mr. Arnold's disbarment in Missouri in June 2018.

HELD: The court accepted the surrender, and Mr. Arnold is disbarred.

Civil

ADOPTION
IN RE ADOPTION OF C.L.
WYANDOTTE DISTRICT COURT–REVERSED and REMANDED
COURT OF APPEALS—REVERSED
NO. 117,723—OCTOBER 5, 2018

FACTS: C.L. was born in September 2016. Mother was not aware that she was pregnant. She placed C.L. for adoption while still in the hospital, and he was placed with custodial parents who hoped to adopt him. A social worker contacted the man who mother believed was the biological father. He was told about the baby and was asked to relinquish his parental rights. Father instead obtained counsel and sought to establish paternity; genetic testing later confirmed that father is C.L.'s biological parent. The potential adoptive parents filed an adoption petition and asked the court to terminate father's rights. Father appeared in that action and opposed adoption. The district court terminated father's parental rights, finding that father abandoned C.L. after learning of his birth. The court of appeals affirmed that finding and father's petition for review was granted.

ISSUE: (1) Sufficiency of the evidence to show support of the child

HELD: The facts established in the district court show that father made adequate efforts to support and meet his child. The putative adoptive parents made untrue allegations in their adoption petition, and the adoption petition prevented father from making efforts to support his child. This case must be remanded so that C.L. can begin to be integrated in to father's home.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 59-2921(a), -2136(h)(1), -2136(h)(1)(A), -2136(h)(1)(C), -2136(h)(2)(A), -2136(h)(2)(B)

criminal

appeals—criminal procedure—jurisdiction—statutes
state v. weekes
saline district court—Case Remanded
court of appeals—reversed
No. 115,739—october 5, 2018

FACTS: Weekes was convicted of unlawful possession of hydrocodone and sentenced to 12 months’ probation with underlying 30-month prison term. State later filed motion to revoke probation. Weeks filed motion pursuant to State v. McGill, 271 Kan. 150 (2001), seeking a reduced underlying prison term or to be allowed to serve sentences concurrently. District court revoked probation, denied the motion to modify the sentence, and imposed the original underlying sentence. Weekes appealed. In an unpublished opinion, court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, relying on State v. Everett, No. 111168, 2015 WL 4366445 (Kan.App.2015)(unpublished), rev. denied 305 Kan. 1254 (2016), and citing K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 2016 Supp. 21-6801(c)(1). Weekes’ petition for review granted.

ISSUE: Appellate jurisdiction

HELD: Review was limited to issue of appellate jurisdiction. Logical fallacies in Everett rationale are identified. Panel had jurisdiction to review whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Weekes’ motion for a post-probation-revocation sentence modification, pursuant to K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(E), even if the denial results in the imposition of an original sentence that was a presumptive sentence for the crime of conviction. The panel’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is reversed. Appeal was reinstated and remanded to court of appeals for consideration on the merits.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6803(q), 22-3716(c)(1)(E); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6820(c)(1)

appeals—constitutional law—criminal law—criminal procedure—evidence  fourth amendment—prosecutors
state v. lowery
shawnee district court—affirmed
No. 115,377—october 5, 2018

FACTS: Related to a shooting between two vehicles on victims’ wedding night, Lowery was convicted of charges including premeditated first-degree murder of Davenport-Ray, attempted premeditated first-degree murder of Ray, and unlawful discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. On appeal, Lowery claimed: (1) prosecutorial error during trial and in closing argument; (2) he was denied his right to be present when district court held hearing on Lowery’s motion in limine and compelled a State witness to testify pursuant to grant of immunity; (3) district court erred by instructing jury on law of aiding and abetting without modifying the standard instruction; (4) his post-arrest statements to law enforcement officers were involuntary and should have been suppressed; (5) the partially redacted video recording of his interview with law enforcement officers contained inadmissible evidence; (6) prosecutor’s questions to witness went beyond the scope of defense counsel’s direct examination and elicited hearsay testimony; (7) insufficient evidence supported his convictions; and (8) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Prosecutorial error, (2) right to be present at every critical trial stage, (3) aiding and abetting instruction, (4) voluntariness of a defendant’s statements to law enforcement, (5) failure to redact evidence from defendant’s video-recorded statement, (6) hearsay evidence beyond the scope of direct examination, (7) sufficiency of the evidence, (8) cumulative error

HELD: Defendant cannot circumvent contemporaneous objection requirements of K.S.A. 60-404 by characterizing an appellate issue as prosecutorial error rather than evidentiary error. No review of evidentiary claims that were not preserved for appeal. No abuse of district court’s discretion in denying Lowery’s motion for a new trial based on prosecutor’s comments and gestures. No error in prosecutor’s use of puzzle and picture analogies in this case which is factually distinguished from State v. Crawford, 300 Kan. 740 (2014), and State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 (2016). Lowery’s claim of prosecutorial error for violating trial court’s orders in limine is unavailing. While a close call, prosecutor did not comment on witness credibility. Prosecutor improperly used “golden rule” argument in closing argument, and egregiously misstated the DNA evidence and testimony of the DNA analyst, but on facts in this case these were not reversible errors.

Kansas Supreme Court has not addressed whether an immunity hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings at which the defendant must be present, but other courts have found the defendant has no such right. However, district court violated Lowery’s statutory rights by conducting a hearing on Lowery’s motion in limine without Lowery or defense counsel present. Under facts in this case, the error was harmless.

Lowery’s instructional error claim is not reviewed because Lowery invited the error.

There is no express requirement in Miranda that a defendant be informed of the right to stop answering questions at any time and terminate the interview. Instead, this is part of the totality of the circumstances to be reviewed in the voluntariness calculus. Here, Lowery’s statements to law enforcement were freely and voluntarily made. District court’s Jackson v. Denno ruling is affirmed.

New allegations of material that should have been redacted were not preserved for appellate review. On claims properly before the court, the jury should not have heard officer comments on the possible sentence imposed if Lowery were to be found guilty, officer explanations on the law of felony murder, or statements implying that Lowery had a criminal history. But it is presumed the jury followed the instruction to not consider the ultimate disposition in this case.

Prosecutor’s questions were not outside the scope of direct examination. Officer’s testimony did not constitute inadmissible hearsay evidence, and no reasonable probability that evidence from this testimony affected the outcome of trial.

Evidence viewed in light most favorable to the State was sufficient to support Lowery’s convictions.

The three prosecutorial errors found in this case were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the fairness of Lowery’s trial was not impacted by his absence at the motion hearing. Evidence against Lowery was not overwhelming, but circumstantially strong enough that cumulative effect of the errors did not deprive Lowery a fair trial.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5210(b), 22-3208(7), -3501, -3601(b)(3)-(4), 60-261, 455, -455(a), -460; K.S.A. 22-3403(3), 60-404, -421, -455, -446, -447

attorneys—criminal law—criminal procedure—ethics—evidence  judges—juries—
jury instructions—prosecutors—statutes—venue
state v. miller
douglas district court—affirmed
No. 114,373—october 5, 2018

FACTS: Miller was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder of his wife. State v. Miller, 284 Kan. 682 (2007)(Miller I). In 2012 unpublished opinion, court of appeals granted Miller post-conviction relief and ordered a new trial. Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that decision. Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921 (2014)(Miller II). On retrial, Miller again convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. Miller appealed. As structured by the court, Miller claims trial court erred by: (1) denying motion for change of venue given extensive publicity surrounding first trial and corresponding pretrial publicity on retrial; (2) denying Miller’s for-cause challenges to 10 prospective jurors who knew of Miller’s prior conviction and/or had a preconceived opinion he was guilty; (3) denying Miller’s motion to first have jury determine if victim’s death was homicide, and then have same jury determine the degree of homicide; (4) denying portion of proposed instruction that limited jury’s consideration of dating site evidence as evidence of homicide; (5) denying motion to disqualify the district attorney’s (DA’s) office based on conflict of interest with witness and because office in possession of information from Miller’s first trial that was protected by attorney-client privilege; and (6) three times advancing an interpretation of the evidence that was not supported by the record. Miller also claimed (7) that medical evidence from State’s forensic pathologist was insufficient to establish the victim had been killed by another. Miller further claimed the trial court erred by: (8) denying motions for mistrial after prosecutor mentioned pornography in violation of in limine order, and after State’s rebuttal witness testified outside the scope of permissible rebuttal; (9) admitting evidence Miller sought to exclude through motion in limine of Miller’s extramarital affair, Miller accessing dating websites, Miller being the beneficiary of wife’s life insurance policy, and graphic photographs; and (10) granting State’s motion on first day of retrial to admit Miller’s testimony in Miller I without giving timely notice of intent to introduce this prior testimony. Finally, Miller claimed cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Change of venue, (2) trial court’s denial of for-cause juror challenges, (3) Denial of bifurcation request, (4) denial of complete requested limiting instruction, (5) disqualification of district attorney’s office, (6) judicial misconduct, (7) state’s failure to prove a homicide, (8) denial of mistrial motions, (9) motions in limine and admissibility of evidence, (10) admission of defendant’s prior trial testimony, (11) cumulative error

HELD: Millers’ constitutional challenge to venue fails Factors identified by United States and Kansas supreme courts are reviewed and applied, finding no presumed or actual prejudice from pretrial publicity in this case. Circumstances in State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 (2007), are compared.

Defense arguments regarding use of peremptory challenges, and trial court’s refusal to grant for-cause challenges, are examined. Even if district court erred in refusing to strike one prospective juror (A.S.) for cause, under facts in this case there was no showing of prejudice, and no violation of Miller’s constitutional or statutory rights.

Miller’s bifurcation claim is evidentiary rather than constitutional. District court did not err in refusing to bifurcate trial by separate elements.

No showing of error in district court’s modification of the proposed limiting instruction.

Under facts in this case, which included defendant’s son living rent free with an Assistant District Attorney (ADA), and DA’s office acquiring but not disclosing possession of a day planner of Miller’s attorney in first trial, district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disqualify the DA’s office based on conflict of interest or DA’s unprofessional handling of the planner. Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct discussed.

Judicial misconduct claim fails. Taken in context, trial judge’s response was not erroneous, much less misconduct.

Miller did not object to State forensic pathologist’s cause-of-death opinion until basis for that opinion had been thoroughly parsed and interminably repeated through multiple examinations by both parties. Failure to make timely contemporaneous objection defeats review of the merits of this evidentiary claim.

Prosecutor’s mention of pornography was error, but error was harmless in this case. Likewise, if any error in rebuttal witness testimony, the error was harmless.

In following precedent set in Miller I, district court did not err by admitting evidence of extramarital affair for purpose of motive. Under facts in this case, probative value of detective’s testimony about Miller accessing dating websites is tenuous but any error was harmless, and no error in admitting evidence of life insurance. District court’s admission of graphic photographs is affirmed based on law of the case established in Miller I.

Trial court’s decision to allow Miller’s retrial counsel to inspect Miller I testimony and respond with arguments was a reasonable remedy of the discovery violation. Under circumstances in this case, district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to continue or suspend the retrial for a separate hearing on State’s motion to admit the Miller I testimony.

Viewed in context of the entire record, Miller was not so prejudiced by cumulative effect of errors declared in this case as to deny him a fair trial.

DISSENT (Johnson, J.): Notwithstanding practical and emotional costs of yet another retrial that likely again would result in a conviction, Constitutions require that result to maintain integrity of our criminal justice system. Cannot condone the conviction in this case because the retrial was fundamentally unfair. Unfairness starts with retrial’s venue, citing his dissent in Carr. Allowing juror A.S. to sit on retrial jury was fundamental error. Testimony about Miller accessing dating websites had no logical connection to a relevant fact that would make it more likely that Miller killed his wife. Imprudent to apply law of the case doctrine to uphold admission of graphic photographs. And testimony of State’s forensic pathologist should have been considered in assessing impact of cumulative error.

DISSENT (Wurtz, J., appointed to hear case vice Justice Stegall): Agrees that if an erroneous expert opinion on cause of death is added to the cumulative error analysis in this case, prejudice caused by cumulative effect of all errors denied Miller a fair trial. Also agrees that expert opinion on the cause of death was not based on medical evidence but rather on the doctor’s factual determination that Miller had lied about being in the room when his wife died. Would find Miller’s objection to expert opinion on the cause of death was sufficient to preserve the question for appellate review on the merits.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3212(a)(1), -3212(i), -3601(b)(3), 60-242(b), -426, -426(b); K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-226(b)(6)(C), -226(b)(6)(C)(ii); K.S.A. 22-2101 et seq., -2616(1), -3423(1)(c), 60-101 et seq., -404, -407(f), -445, -456, -1507

criminal law—criminal procedure—evidence—jury instructions—prosecutors
state v. anderson
bourbon district court—affirmed
No. 116,710—october 5, 2018

FACTS: Anderson was convicted of child abuse and felony murder in shaken-baby case. On appeal he claimed: (1) district court failed to give multiple acts instruction to ensure jury unanimity as to whether Anderson injured victim by throwing down on the couch or by shaking; (2) district court erroneously admitted testimony under K.S.A. 60-455 of Bodinea person who had previously lived with Anderson and wifeabout Anderson’s prior aggressive behavior toward the child victim; and (3) during closing argument the prosecutor engaged in speculation not fairly based on the evidence by suggesting Anderson believed the State’s doctors were out to get him for the fun of it, by saying Anderson was trying to manipulate jury by calling the victim his son, and by saying Anderson lost his temper which resulted in a child with massive brain injury. Anderson also claimed cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Refusal to give a requested unanimity instruction, (2) admission of K.S.A. 60-455 evidence, (3) prosecutorial error in closing argument, (4) cumulative error

HELD: Court reviews distinction between multiple acts and alternative means. Here, jury did not have to choose between multiple acts. District court did not err in declining to give jury a unanimity instruction.

Under facts in this case, any error district court may have made in allowing K.S.A. 60-455 testimony of Bodine about Anderson’s prior treatment of the child victim was harmless.

Prosecutor’s comments about doctors’ motives constitute error. Prosecutor arguing that jury should attribute a bad motive to Anderson referencing the victim as his son was error. And prosecutor’s remarks about Anderson losing his temper were not supported by the record, and argued facts that were contrary to the evidence. Nonetheless, under facts in this case, no reasonable possibility that the absence of prosecutor’s erroneous comments would have changed outcome of the credibility and expert battles that Anderson lost.

Cumulative error claim fails.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3), 60-261, -455, -455(b)

Tags:  Attorney Discipline  Bourbon District  disbarment  Douglas District  Saline District  Shawnee District  Wyandotte District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

September 28, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, October 1, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

 

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

ORDER OF INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
IN THE MATTER OF JEFFERY A. MASON
NO. 119,012—SEPTEMBER 28, 2018

FACTS: Mason's license to practice law in Kansas was suspended for six months in December 2016 for violating multiple Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. In December 2017, the Disciplinary Administrator's office filed a new complaint and a hearing panel determined that Mason violated KRPC 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) (client communication), and 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The misconduct arose after Mason failed to filed essential tax forms for an organization, which resulted in the revocation of its 501(c)(3) status.

HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel found that Mason failed to act with reasonable diligence when representing his client. There were several aggravating factors, and the panel also found mitigators including mental health issues and his willingness to cooperate with the disciplinary process. The disciplinary administrator recommended discipline of indefinite suspension, retroactive to the December 2016 date of Mason's initial, six-month suspension. Mason suggested discipline of censure and that he be placed on probation. The hearing panel determined that probation was not appropriate in this case and recommended discipline of indefinite suspension.

HELD: Mason filed no exceptions to the hearing panel report. The court adopted the hearing panel's findings and conclusions and concluded that indefinite suspension was the appropriate discipline. Before Mason can be reinstated, Mason must provide a written report from a licensed mental health provider and a plan for future practice. The indefinite suspension runs from the date of this order, a decision that was prompted by the serious nature of the violations and the misleading nature of Mason's comments at the prior disciplinary proceeding.

 

criminal 

constitutional law—criminal procedure—motions—sentences—statutes
state v. Lehman
sedgwick district court—reversed, modified sentence vacated, and remanded
court of appeals—reversed
no. 112,500—september 28, 2018

FACTS: Lehman was convicted in 2009 of sexual battery, and sentenced to 31 months in prison with 24 months post-release supervision. State filed 2013 motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1)(G) required mandatory lifetime of post-release supervision. Motion was ultimately heard in June 2014, after KDOC had discharged Lehman from post-release supervision. District court ordered lifetime post-release supervision, finding Lehman’s discharge did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence. Lehman appealed. Court of appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Lehman’s petition for review granted.  

ISSUE: District court’s authority to modify a complete sentence

HELD: Invited error doctrine does not preclude State’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. Nor do contract principles prevent State from challenging the legality of a sentence it agreed to recommend in a plea agreement. Cases from other state and federal courts are reviewed. When Lehman completed his original sentence—even if illegal—without a court order that superseded the judgment of the sentencing judge, he was no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. Any additional sentence imposed for the same offense after completing the original sentence constitutes a multiple punishment proscribed the double jeopardy provision of federal and Kansas constitutions. Argument that State’s notice of filing the motion to correct an illegal sentence negated any expectation of finality Lehman may have had upon completing his original sentence is unavailing.

CONCURRENCE (Rosen, J.): Agrees that under facts of this case, Lehman had a legitimate expectation in the finality of his sentence. Writes separately to emphasize the special circumstances of this case. If State had filed motion to correct and had obtained a judicial stay of finality before Lehman’s sentence had expired, that would have preserved the sentencing court’s jurisdiction. Instead, State did not obtain service on Lehman until after his sentence had expired.

CONCURRENCE (Stegall, J.): Concurs in the result but would not reach the double jeopardy question because precedent established in State v. Montgomery, 295 Kan. 837 (2012), would apply to foreclose the State’s claim.  

STATUTE: K.S.A. 21-4704(e)(2), 22-3504, -3504(1)-(2), -3717(d)(1)(G)

 

criminal law—criminal procedure—sentences—statutes
state v. lamone
sedgwick district court—judgment vacated and case remanded
court of appeals - affirmed
no. 115,451—september 28, 2018

FACTS:  Lamone was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). District court enhanced the sentence based on Lamone’s two prior Wichita Municipal Court convictions. Lamone appealed, arguing the Wichita ordinance prohibits a broader range of conduct than the Kansas statute. Court of appeals vacated the sentence and remanded case to district court for resentencing. 54 Kan. App. 2d 180 (2017). State’s petition for review granted.

ISSUE: Prior convictions used to enhance sentence

HELD: This issue was addressed and resolved in State v. Gensler, 308 Kan. 674 (2018). A prior municipal court conviction for DUI under a Wichita ordinance prohibiting operation of a vehicle under certain circumstances, when the element of “vehicle” is defined more broadly that the “vehicle” element in the state DUI statute, cannot be used to elevate a later violation of the state statute to a felony. Lamone’s sentence is vacated and case is remanded to district court for resentencing.

DISSENT (Stegall, J.): Dissents from the result and rationale in this case for same reasons stated in his dissent in Gensler.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 8-1567, -1567(i)(1); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1567

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

September 18 and 21, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, September 24, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

Attorney Discipline

ORDER OF DISBARMENT
IN RE MICHAEL P. PELOQUIN
NO. 19,846 — September 18, 2018

FACTS: In a letter dated September 13, 2018, Michael P. Peloquin voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law. At the time of surrender, a formal complaint was pending alleging violations of: KRPC 1.3 (diligence); 1.4 (communication); 1.16 (termination of representation; 3.2 (expediting litigation); 5.5 (unauthorized practice of law); 7.3 (client solicitation); and 8.4 (professional misconduct). There were also allegations that Peloquin violated Supreme Court Rule 218. The court accepted the surrender of Peloquin's license, and he is disbarred.

Civil

BREACH OF TRUST—DAMAGES
ELLIS LIVING TRUST V. ELLIS LIVING TRUST
SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED and CASE REMANDED
COURT OF APPEALS—REVERSED
NO. 113,097—SEPTEMBER 21, 2018

FACTS: Alain Ellis and her husband, Dr. Harvey Ellis, both executed living trusts. After Alain died, Harvey served as trustee of Alain's trust. The terms of Alain's trust provided that all income went to Harvey during his life. Upon his death, the trust was to be divided equally between the Ellises' two sons, with each receiving income from the principal. While acting as trustee, Harvey improperly converted a substantial amount from Alain's trust and placed the converted assets into his own trust. After Harvey died, the improper transfers were discovered and over $1 million was returned to Alain's trust. Alain's trust and the trust beneficiaries sought additional damages and filed suit against Harvey's trust, Harvey's estate, and individuals who advised Harvey while he was still living. Before trial, the district court ruled that Alain's trust could not seek punitive damages from Harvey's estate because Harvey was deceased. It also concluded that Alain's trust was not entitled to recover double damages. Alain's trust appealed these rulings to the court of appeals, which affirmed the district court's rulings. Alain's petition for review was granted on these two issues.

ISSUES: (1) Punitive damages from a deceased trustee; (2) double damages

HELD: The question of whether a plaintiff can recover punitive damages from the estate of a deceased tortfeaser is an issue of first impression. The Kansas statutes are silent on this issue. But the statutes do provide that an estate can stand in the shoes of a deceased tortfeaser, especially because an estate exists to pay the financial obligations of the deceased. And a threat of punitive damages may serve to discourage wrongdoing by trustees. For these reasons, a trust may seek punitive damages from the estate of a deceased trustee. Since that issue was not put to a jury in this case, the case must be remanded. This rationale also allows for a plaintiff to seek statutory double damages against a trustee's estate because those damages are penal in nature and serve the same purpose as punitive damages.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 58a-1002, -1002(a), -1002(a)(3), -1002(c), 60-1801, -3702, -3702(a), -3702(c), -3702(d), -3703

STATUTE OF FRAUDS
DEWITTE INSURANCE AGENCY V. FINANCIAL ASSOCIATES MIDWEST
JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT—CASE REMANDED
COURT OF APPEALS — REVERSED
NO. 115,126—SEPTEMBER 21, 2018

FACTS: Three individuals worked for Financial Associates as area managers. These individuals trained new insurance agents and provided administrative support. As part of their compensation, the area managers received one percent of the premium paid on all policies from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas City. This compensation was due to them not only during their employment but after their employment ended, until the policies they had signed were no longer renewed. The payments were made for more than 20 years. After Financial Associates sold its agency to Blue Cross, Blue Cross stopped paying the area managers this one percent premium portion. After the area managers asked for the payment to be resumed and Blue Cross refused, the area managers filed suit claiming breach of contract. The district court decided in favor of Financial Associates, concluding that the area managers' contracts did not govern the one percent premium payment and that any oral agreement to make that payment was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the area managers' petition for review was granted on the statute of frauds issue.

ISSUE: (1) Statute of frauds full-performance exception

HELD: The plain language of K.S.A. 33-106 does not include any exceptions to the statute of frauds. But the full-performance exception to the statute of frauds was developed in common law and recognized in Kansas shortly after statehood. The legislature's failure to change the statute shows that the legislature has acquiesced to the full-performance exception. In Kansas, the full-performance exception requires the full performance of only one party to an agreement. Because the area managers performed their part of the contract for over 20 years, the full-performance exception applies, and the alleged oral agreement is removed from the statute of frauds.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 33-106

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW—DUI
PEARSON V. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
WYANDOTTE DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND DISMISSED
NO. 118,696—SEPTEMBER 21, 2018

FACTS: Pearson was arrested and his breath test showed alcohol levels above the legal limit. After being served with a suspension notice, Pearson timely requested an administrative hearing with the Department of Revenue. Pearson appeared for the scheduled hearing but the arresting officer did not, and the hearing officer dismissed the suspension order. A few days later, the hearing officer learned that the officer had attempted to notify officials that he was hospitalized and would not be able to attend the hearing. After receiving that information, the hearing officer withdrew the dismissal order and set a new hearing date to consider Pearson's suspension. Pearson objected, but the hearing was held and a new hearing officer affirmed the suspension of Pearson's driver's license. After Pearson filed a petition for judicial review, the district court affirmed, finding that the hearing officer was a party to the proceedings and could withdraw the dismissal. Pearson appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Jurisdiction; (2) ability to withdraw an order

HELD: The order withdrawing the dismissal and setting the matter for a second hearing was not a final agency action. As such, Pearson could not have filed a petition for judicial review of that order. Pearson was allowed to appeal only at the conclusion of the second proceeding, where the new hearing officer affirmed the suspension of his driving privileges. There is no express or implicit statutory authority to allow a hearing officer to reconsider, grant a rehearing, or set aside an administrative suspension order after the order's effective date. The district court erred when it found that the hearing officer was a party to the action, giving her the authority to withdraw the order of dismissal. In the absence of a request for reconsideration, the hearing officer could not withdraw the order of dismissal and reinstate the proceedings against Pearson.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 8-259(a), -1002, -1002(a), -1002(f), -1020, -1020(d)(1), -1020(k), -1020(m), -1020(n), -1020(o), -1020(p), -1020(q), 77-621(a)(1); and K.S.A. 77-607(a), -607(b)(1), -607(b)(2)

Tags:  Attorney Discipline  Johnson District  Sedgwick District  Wyandotte District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

September 14, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, September 17, 2018

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

DIVORCE — STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
IN RE MARRIAGE OF GERLEMAN
DOUGLAS DISTRICT COURT – REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 118,457 – SEPTEMBER 14, 2018

FACTS: After a contentious divorce, the district court entered judgment against Robert Gerleman for back spousal maintenance owed to Jeannette, as well as judgment on Robert's previous agreement to pay Jeannette a portion of his military retirement pay. In an effort to collect past-due amounts, the district court issued orders of garnishment to Robert's employer. Robert's father was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2017, and Robert took off more than two weeks from work in order to assist his father during surgery and treatment. Citing K.S.A. 60-2310(c), Robert asked that the garnishment be released because of the illness and his inability to work. The district court refused to issue the release, and Robert appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Interpretation of K.S.A. 60-2310(c)

HELD: K.S.A. 60-2310(c) allows for a release of garnishment if the debtor is prevented from working for more than two weeks because of illness of the debtor or any family member of the debtor. Under the plain meaning of the statute, Robert's father is "any member" of Robert's family. There is no requirement in the statute that the family member be an immediate family member residing with the debtor. The affidavit submitted by Robert was sufficient to prove that he missed work for more than two weeks while caring for his father. The district court's decision is reversed, and the case is remanded for a factual determination about when the garnishment could resume.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 17-2205(a)(4)(A), 60-2310(c)

criminal

criminal procedure — motions — sentences — statutes
State v. Smith
Sedgwick District Court – sentence vacated, case remanded
No. 118,042 — September 14, 2018

FACTS: Smith convicted in 2006 of aggravated kidnapping. In 2014 he filed a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging the sentencing court’s criminal history scoring of a South Carolina burglary conviction as a personal felony in Smith’s criminal history. District court denied the motion and Smith appealed. In unpublished opinion the Court of Appeals vacated Smith’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. On remand, district court again found the South Carolina conviction to be a person felony, and denied Smith’s motion. Smith appealed. Issue before the panel centers on whether the holding in State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (2018), was a change in the law that occurred after Smith was sentenced. State argued it was, and through retroactive application of the 2017 amendment to K.S.A. 22-3504, Smith’s sentence was not an illegal sentence.

ISSUE: (1) Sentencing and (2) Classification of an Out of State Conviction

HELD: Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Wetrich was not a change in the law within the meaning of the 2017 amendment to the definition of an illegal sentence in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3).  Instead, the decision reinterpreted the meaning of the term “comparable offenses” within the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act. No final decision on whether the 2017 amendment to K.S.A. 22-3504 can apply retroactively in Smith’s case, but panel rejects State’s claim that that 2017 amendment defining an illegal sentence is jurisdictional. Here, the South Carolina burglary statute that Smith was convicted under is not identical to or narrower than the Kansas burglary statute in effect when Smith committed his current crime of conviction, thus based on holding in Wetrich, Smith’s prior South Carolina burglary cannot be scored as person felony for criminal history purposes. Sentence is vacated and case is remanded for resentencing to classify the South Carolina burglary as a nonperson felony.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6810(a), -6811(d), -6811(e), -6811(e)(3), 22-3504(1), -3504(3); K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4711(e); K.S.A. 21-3110(7), -3715, -4711(e), 22-3504, 60-1507(f)

Tags:  divorce  Douglas District  motions  Sedgwick District  statutory construction 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

September 5 and September 7, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, September 10, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
IN THE MATTER OF LYLE LOUIS ODO
NO. 114,863 – SEPTEMBER 5, 2018

FACTS: Odo's license to practice law in Kansas was suspended for one year in July 2016. In July 2017, Odo filed a petition for reinstatement. After a hearing, the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys recommended that the petition for reinstatement be granted. After careful consideration, the court accepted the panel's findings and grants the petition for reinstatement.

CIVIL

CONTRACTS—PHYSICIANS
CENTRAL KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER V. HATESOHL
BARTON DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS—REVERSED
NO. 113,675—SEPTEMBER 7, 2018

FACTS: Central Kansas Medical Center is a nonprofit corporation which is licensed to operate an ambulatory surgical center. CKMC contracted with Dr. Hatesohl to provide family medicine services. The contract contained a postemployment clause which prevented Dr. Hatesohl from practicing medicine within a 50-mile radius of CKMC. Although he was dissatisfied with the way that the family practice merged with an urgent care facility, Dr. Hatesohl worked the full term of his contract. When he left, CKMC let him know that it would enforce all post-employment covenants. Dr. Hatesohl responded that he believed his employment contract was void because it violated the prohibition against the corporate practice of medicine doctrine. The day after his contract expired, Dr. Hatesohl entered a new contract with Great Bend Regional Hospital to practice family medicine. CKMC sought injunctive relief and damages alleging breach of contract. Dr. Hatesohl countered with a claim that CKMC's ambulatory surgical center license did not cover family medicine. The district court agreed and granted Dr. Hatesohl's motion for summary judgment, finding his employment contract was illegal.  The court of appeals reversed and the petition for review was granted.

ISSUE: (1) Validity of employment contract

HELD: The practice of medicine is limited to licensed persons, not corporations. But a corporation which is licensed by the State may employ a physician to provide medical services, with the caveat that the physician may not practice medicine that the corporation is not licensed to provide. Since CKMC only held an ambulatory surgical center license, its power to provide family medicine services through Dr. Hatesohl had to flow from that license. It did not. An ambulatory surgical center license is not broad enough to encompass a family practice. Because Dr. Hatesohl was hired to practice medicine that CKMC was not licensed to perform, his employment contract violated the corporate practice of medicine doctrine and was void.

CONCURRENCE (Stegall, J.): The corporate practice of medicine doctrine should be abandoned because it is a judicial intrusion in to the legislative arena and was created to aid special interest groups. The decision of the majority is correct because the court was not asked to overturn the doctrine and stare decisis compels this decision.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 17-2707(b)(9), 40-3401(f), 60-256(c)(2), 65-2803(a); K.S.A. 17-2709(a), 48-1603(o), -1607(a), 65-425(a), -425(b), -425(e), -425(f), -425(h), -427, -431(a), -431(c)

 

INSURANCE—STARE DECISIS
MCCULLOUGH V. WILSON
WYANDOTTE DISTRICT COURT — AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS — AFFIRMED
NO. 115,067—SEPTEMBER 7, 2018

FACTS: Wilson was driving excessively fast when he collided with the back of car carrying McCullough and his passenger, Risley. McCullough and Risley filed a lawsuit against Wilson, seeking monetary damages for lost wages, pain and suffering, and medical expenses. Risley's medical expenses were paid by the PIP coverage provided by his AAA insurance. But AAA never requested reimbursement from Wilson's insurance company. After a jury decided in Risley's favor, Wilson sought to overturn part of the verdict on grounds that Risley's cause of action passed to AAA and that only AAA could recover damages for Risley's medical expenses. The district court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Wilson's petition for review was granted.

ISSUES: (1) Assignment of subrogation rights

HELD: The doctrine of stare decisis suggests that the district court's decision should be affirmed. Especially in cases involving contracts, reliance on prior precedent is important. Because there is no reason to depart from prior holdings, Risley is entitled to the entire verdict awarded by the jury, including the portion covering medical expenses.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 40-3103, -3113a, -3113a(c)

criminal

probation—sentences—statutes
State v. Clapp
reno district court—reversed and remanded
court of appeals—reversed
No. 112,842—September 7, 2018

FACTS: Clapp was sentenced to a 118-month prison term and granted a downward dispositional departure to 36 months probation with a 60-day jail sanction to be suspended when inpatient drug treatment had been arranged. State filed its first motion to revoke in January 2014. District court revoked probation and imposed a180-day prison sanction. State filed a second motion to revoke in August 2014. District court revoked probation and imposed the underlying sentence, specifically stating he did not feel Clapp valued Community Corrections as a way to help change how Clapp thought and lived his life. District court agreed that Clapp had not committed a new crime, had not absconded, had a job, and was still in treatment, but commented on the convictions leading to Clapp’s probation, his criminal history, and his dishonesty with his intensive supervision officer. Clapp appealed, claiming in part the district court failed to make the statutory findings required by K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9) to bypass the statutory intermediate sanctions for parole violators. Court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, finding in part that K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716 does not require district court to make statutory findings to bypass intermediate sanctions when a violator has already served a 180-day intermediate sanction, and that, even if required in this case, the district court implicitly satisfied the particularity requirement to revoke based upon public safety. Clapp’s petition for review was granted.

ISSUE: Probation violation sanctions under 2013 and 2014 Versions of K.S.A. 22-3716

HELD: District court’s revocation of Clapp’s probation under subsection (c)(1)(E) for a second probation violation did not conform to the graduated sanctioning scheme in the 2013 and 2014 versions of K.S.A. 22-3716. For a second violation, the district court could have utilized the prison sanction of 120- or 180-days under subsections (c)(1)(C)-(D). Imposition of the underlying sentence on a probation violator was not authorized under subsection (c)(1)(E) because no previous jail sanction pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716(b)(4)(A)-(B) or K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(B) had been imposed, notwithstanding the 60-day jail term in the original sentence or the district court’s error in imposing a 180-day sanction for Clapp’s first violation. Nor did the district court set forth the particularized reasons required by K.S.A. Supp. 22-3716(c)(9) to bypass the graduated intermediate sanctions. Instead, district court’s remarks were akin to historical reasoning for revoking probation prior to the 2013 amendment to K.S.A. 22-3716. Reversed and remanded for a new dispositional hearing to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716, -3716(b), -3716(b)(4)(A)-(B), -3716(c)(1)(A)-(E), -3716(c)(8), -3716(c)(9), -3716(c)(12); K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(D)-(E), -3716(c)(8), -3716(c)(9); and K.S.A. 22-3504(1)

Tags:  Attorney Discipline  Barton District  probation  Reno District  sentencing  statutes  Wyandotte District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 3 of 11
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  >   >>   >|