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  constitutional law  Shawnee District  statutes  Johnson District  Reno District  Saline District  Sedgwick  8807  Criminal Procedure  evidence  Johnson District Court  Motions  Douglas District  criminal law  Fourth Amendment  Johnson  jury instructions  search and seizure  Sedgwick District Court  Shawnee District Court  Disbarment  Finney District  habeas corpus  Leavenworth District  Reno  Riley  sentences 

August 2, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, August 5, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

civil

attorney fees—courts—probate code—wills
In re estate of Oroke
jefferson district court—affirmed and remanded
court of appeals—reversed
NO. 116,333—august 2, 2019

FACTS: Testator (Oroke) deposited original will and codicil with probate court of home county. A few weeks after his death, heirs tried to locate the will but clerk of the court was unable to find it and informed heirs the will was not in the custody of the court. After a search elsewhere found no will, testator's daughter filed intestate probate proceeding. While that proceeding was pending, and after imitation period for petitioning a will for probate had passed, clerk of the court located the will and codicil. Testator's stepdaughter filed separate petition to probate the will. District court consolidated the two probate proceedings and admitted the will to probate, finding step-daughter had exercised due diligence in attempting to locate the will. Testator's daughter appealed. Court of appeals reversed. State v. Hirsh, 54 Kan. App. 2d 705, 405 P.3d 41 (2017). Panel found no exceptions applied to toll the running of the limitation period because the will was not “knowingly” withheld, and found this case indistinguishable from In re Estate of Strader, 301 Kan. 50, 339 P.3d 769 (2014). Stepdaughter's petition for review granted. After oral argument in Kansas Supreme Court, stepdaughter moved for appellate attorney fees and expenses for the entire appellate process to be paid from the estate.

ISSUES: (1) Probate—statute of limitations; (2) appellate attorney fees

HELD: Clerk’s failure in duty to produce the will distinguishes this case from Strader. Circumstances of this case conform in all respects with requirements of the unique circumstances doctrine. While that doctrine is used sparingly, neither the Legislature in repealing K.S.A. 59-620, nor the enactment of Supreme Court Rule 108(e)(4)(A), intended that an error by a judicial employee should be inconsequential as to the statute of limitations. Equitably tolling the statute of limitations provides a realistic and fair remedy for an unusual situation not contemplated by the statutory scheme. This is not a modification of Strader, but ia holding limited to the unique and rare circumstances of a district court clerk not following a duty imposed by law.

Stepdaughter’s attempts to have the appellate courts uphold the district court's admission of the will to probate provides this court with authority to entertain her motion for attorney fees. Motion for attorney fees was timely filed for consideration of appellate services rendered before Kansas Supreme Court, but not for appellate services while appeal was pending in Court of Appeals. The attorney fee request, limited to appellate services provided after panel’s opinion was filed, is reviewed and found to be reasonable. Decision of the district court is affirmed and case is remanded for further proceedings conforming with this opinion.

STATUTES:  K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 20-343, 60-2601; K.S.A. 20-343, 59-617, -618, -620, -621, -1504; and K.S.A. 59-620 (Furse 1994)

criminal

constitutional law—criminal procedure—sentences—statutes
state v. ewing
sedgwick district court—sentences vacated and cases remanded
court of appeals—affirmed in part, reversed in part
NO. 116,641—august 2, 2019

FACTS: Ewing pleaded guilty to charges of felony theft and aggravated burglary in three cases. Presentence investigation report in each case included a person felony converted from combining a Kansas misdemeanor with two Arkansas misdemeanors. Ewing appealed, arguing district court’s classification of the Arkansas convictions as person offenses required judicial fact-finding in violation of Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. In unpublished opinion, court of appeals held the Arkansas false imprisonment conviction was properly scored as a person crime, but vacated the sentences in each case and remanded for resentencing because record was unclear as to what statute or subsection the Arkansas battery offense arose under. Panel also rejected State’s procedural argument for presumption of proper classification because Ewing did not lodge an objection and failed to designate a record sufficient to identify the Arkansas offense in question. Petitions for review by both sides granted in consolidated appeals.

ISSUES: (1) Out-of-state conviction—false imprisonment; (2) out-of-state conviction—battery

HELD: District court pronounced Ewing’s sentences prior to State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (2018). State’s arguments against application of Wetrich are rejected. Arkansas false imprisonment is not a person crime. A person who would not be guilty of criminal restraint in Kansas might be guilty of second-degree false imprisonment in Arkansas. Accordingly, the Kansas crime is not comparable to second-degree false imprisonment in Arkansas because circumstances justifying an act otherwise constituting the Arkansas crime are not identical to or broader than those in Kansas. District court and panel erred when concluding the Arkansas offense should be classified as a person crime.

Insufficient evidence supports the district court’s legal conclusion that Ewing’s battery conviction was a person crime. Even though Ewing failed to object, State had burden of establishing that he committed a version of the offense supporting the person classification. State v. Obregon, 309 Kan. __, __ (June 28, 2019). State did not meet its burden in this case. Sentences vacated and case remanded for recalculation of criminal history score and resentencing under Wetrich. If misdemeanor conversion to a felony is no longer possible without the Arkansas false imprisonment conviction being scored as a person misdemeanor, the person or non-person classification of the Arkansas battery conviction may be moot.:  

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21- 6801 et seq.,: -6809, -6811(a), 22-3504(3); K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5425; K.S.A. 20-3018(b), 21-3110, -3715, -4711(e), 60-2101(b)

constitutional law—criminal law—juries—prosecutors—trials
state v. Hirsh
barton district court—affirmed in part, reversed in part
vacated in part, and remanded
court of appeals—affirmed
NO. 116,356—august 2, 2019

FACTS: Hirsh was convicted of aggravated assault, two counts of criminal threat for threatening wife and children, and domestic battery. Court of appeals affirmed the criminal threat and domestic battery convictions and sentences, reversed the aggravated assault conviction and vacated that sentence, and remanded for retrial on the aggravated assault charge. Review granted on five allegations of error: (1) Brady violation of right to timely disclosure of exculpatory evidence—­a sheriff’s testimony and production of a disciplinary report that provided an inconsistent account of where the incident occurred in the house; (2) two convictions for criminal threat are multiplicitous; (3) prosecutorial error; (4) erroneous refusal to recall jury to explore possible misconduct during voir dire of three jurors who did not disclose they were victims of domestic abuse; and (5) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Brady violation; (2) multiplicitous crimes; (3) prosecutorial error; (4) recall of jury; (5) cumulative error

HELD: Panel erred by rejecting in par the Brady argument because prosecutor had not suppressed the report, as knowledge and possession of information by law enforcement is imputed to the prosecutor. Nonetheless the Brady claim is rejected on the merits because on facts in this case, the one inconsistent location stated in the report did not qualify as “material” under Brady and its progeny.

Multiplicity claim challenges the two criminal threat convictions—threat to kill wife and threat to kill children. Hirsh demonstrated the threats were “unitary” conduct, but there were two units of prosecution for criminal threat in this case. Because Hirsh cannot demonstrate the second component under State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453 (2006), of only one unit of prosecution for criminal threat, there is no double jeopardy or multiplicty problem.

Under longstanding Kansas caselaw, prosecutor telling jury that a witness told the truth is error. But under circumstances in this case, no reasonable probability that prosecutor’s error contributed to the verdict.

Transcript of voir dire does not support allegation that three jurors ever failed to respond appropriately during voir dire. Hirsh cannot satisfy threshold in State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493 (1987), of just cause to recall jurors. Case is analogous to State v. Hopkins, 257 Kan. 723 (1995). State v. Jenkins, 269 Kan. 334 (2000), is distinguished.

Even if an individually immaterial Brady error is assumed, and combined with a single-sentence individually harmless prosecutorial error, these two minor errors are insufficient to employ cumulative error doctrine.      

CONCURRENCE (Beier, J., joined by Rosen and Stegall, JJ.): Concurs in all respects but for majority’s multiplicity analysis. Does not accept that Hirsch’s threats, separated by a plea from his wife to which he obviously reacted, qualify as “unitary” conduct. Would reject the multiplicity challenge on the first Schoonover component and not reach or analyze the second.

DISSENT (Johnson, J.): Dissents in part on majority’s determination that there were two units of prosecution with respect to criminal threat. Would reverse one of the convictions.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5415,-5415(a), 22-3501(1); K.S.A. 21-3419(a)(1), 60-404

criminal procedure—sentences—statutes
state v. saucedo
reno district court—reversed, sentence vacated, case remanded
court of appeals—reversed
NO. 117,299—august 2, 2019

FACTS: Saucedo appealed his sentence, alleging the district court erred in classifying his prior Washington residential burglary conviction as a person felony. In its unpublished opinion, the court of appeals affirmed, relying heavily on State v. Moore, 52 Kan. App. 2d 799 (2016), prior to that case being reversed, 307 Kan. 599 (2018), by applying test in State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (2018). Saucedo’s petition for review was granted, and parties were ordered to show cause why the court should not (1) summarily vacate the panel's decision; (2) summarily vacate Saucedo's sentence; and (3) remand the case to the district court for resentencing in accordance with Wetrich and Moore.

ISSUE: (1) Out-of-state conviction—residential burglary

HELD: Under Wetrich and Moore, Saucedo's Washington conviction was not comparable to any offense under the Kansas criminal code because the Washington crime's mental state element is not identical to, or narrower than that of the Kansas crime. As the durational departure sentence ultimately imposed obviously followed from district court’s erroneous view of the sentence, there was an abuse of discretion. Sentence is vacated and case remanded to district court for resentencing with a criminal history score characterizing the Washington conviction as a nonperson felony.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5413(a), -5413(g)(1), -5807(a)(1) -6203, -6801 et seq., -6805, -6811(e)(3)

Kansas Court of Appeals

civil

civil procedure—creditors and debtors—estoppel and waiver—fraud and deceit—limitations of actions—statutes—summary judgment—torts
Foxfield Villa Assocs. v. Robben
johnson district court—affirmed
No. 119,611—august 2, 2019

FACTS: Parties were involved in a complex and unsuccessful real estate project that resulted in loss of millions of dollars, two federal lawsuits, a bankruptcy, and two district court lawsuits in Johnson County, one of which resulted in this appeal. Paul Robben, married to Lori Robben, was transaction broker for a 2008 real estate transactions involving Foxfield Villa Associates and parties (collectively “FVA”). FVA defaulted on a 2010 loan from Bank of Blue Valley (“BBV”) for purchase and development of acreage. FVA then sued BBV in Johnson County and federal court. District court ruled against FVA’s claims and in favor of BBV’s counterclaims. Based on Paul’s 2013 disclosure that he was acting as the transaction broker under Lori’s supervising authority during the 2008 transaction, FVA filed second suit in 2016 against Lori (collectively “Lori”) alleging negligent supervision, vicarious liability, aiding and abetting negligence, common-law negligent supervision, fraudulent transfer of three properties, conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfer, and aiding and abetting fraudulent transfer. District court granted Lori’s motion for summary judgment on all FVA claims, finding in part the two-year statute of limitations barred FVA’s claims of negligence, and FVA’s claims had been extinguished based on the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). FVA appealed arguing: (1) it could not have reasonably ascertained it was injured within the two-year statute of limitations and thus was entitled to equitable estoppel; and (2) its fraudulent transfer claims survive because FVA could not have reasonably discovered the transfers until after it filed suit in this case. FVA also asked for recognition of new causes of actions in Kansas—conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfers, and aiding and abetting fraudulent transfers.

ISSUES: (1) Negligence claims; (2) equitable estoppel; (3) fraudulent transfer claims; (4) new causes of actions

HELD: District court did not err in applying K.S.A. 60-513(b) to FVA’s negligence claims. The act causing FVA’s injuries happened on or before 2008. Even assuming FVA did not know of Lori’s involvement until 2016, FVA’s negligence claims are still barred because the statutory limitation period begins once FVA knew it was injured, not when FVA discovered who injured it. Summary judgment was appropriate because no facts disputed that FVA had reasonably ascertained it was injured when it filed its first lawsuit in 2011.

FVA is not entitled to equitable estoppel. FVA presented no facts to establish Lori or Paul committed affirmative acts to limit FVA’s discovery of alleged negligence. FVA’s claims of fraudulent concealment, dodging subpoena service, and refusal to attend depositions are waived by failure to cite to the appellate record. FVA presented no facts or law to support a finding that Lori had a fiduciary relationship to disclose any supervisory relationship she had with Paul. And FVA’s equitable estoppel claim presents no fact questions appropriate for trial.

District court did not err in granting summary judgment on FVA’s fraudulent transfer claim that was based on transfer of three properties. Each property transfer is reviewed. FVA’s fraudulent transfer claim relies on K.S.A. 33-204(a)(2) or K.S.A. 33-205(a) which grant a creditor the right to recover for a fraudulent transfer when a debtor does not receive reasonable value for transfer of the property. Such claims are subject to the four-year time limitation in K.S.A. 3-209(b) and are not entitled to saving clause in that statute. Even if fraudulent transfer of the properties for actual intent could be presumed as arising under K.S.A. 33-204(a)(1), FVA is not entitled to the savings clause on facts in this case. District court’s reliance on Bi-State Dev. Co, In., v. Shafer, Kline & Warren, Inc., 26 Kan App. 2d 573 (2018), was harmless error. FVA waived estoppel and limited discovery arguments by failing to brief the arguments.

District court did not err in granting summary judgment against FVA’s claims of conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfers, and aiding and abetting fraudulent transfers. Even if FVA had a cause of action for conspiracy to commit a fraudulent transfer, FVA cannot recover because summary judgment against the underlying claim of fraudulent transfer was appropriate. Kansas courts have never determined whether conspiracy can extend to include conspiracy for fraudulent transfers, or whether a party may raise a claim of aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer. Split of authority in other jurisdictions is noted.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 33-201 et seq., -201(g), -204, -204(a)(1), -204(a)(2), -204(b)(1), -204(b)(3) -205, -205(a), -209(a), -209(b), 60-513(a), -513(a)(4), -513(b)

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

July 26, 2019

Posted By Administration, Monday, July 29, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

criminal 

appeals—constitutional law—criminal procedure
evidence—fourth amendment—motions
state v. christian
reno district court—reversed and remanded
court of appeals—reversed
NO. 116,133—july 26, 2019

FACTS: Christian was arrested for failure to provide proof of insurance. Based on evidence discovered in search of Christian and his vehicle, he was charged and convicted in bench trial on drug crimes. District court denied motion to suppress. In an unpublished opinion, court of appeals reversed the convictions and sentences, holding Christian did not properly waive right to a jury trial, and provided guidance on remand about Christian’s motion to suppress evidence seized after police officer unconstitutionally detained him. Panel found the initial seizure was unsupported by reasonable suspicion. But citing Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. __ (2016), the panel applied the attenuation doctrine to conclude the evidence could be admitted because the officer’s discovery of an expired tag on the vehicle presented an intervening circumstance that attenuated the taint of the officer’s unconstitutional seizure. Christian’s petition for review was granted on the suppression issue.

ISSUE: (1) Attenuation doctrine

HELD: The panel’s finding that the officer unlawfully seized Christian is accepted because State did not cross-petition for review of that ruling. The three attenuation doctrine factors stated in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975), are discussed and applied. First, the temporal proximity factor favors suppression because no significant lapse in time between the unlawful seizure and discovery of evidence. Second, the intervening circumstances factor also favors suppression because discovering evidence of a crime when that discovery flows directly from the unconstitutional seizure does not attenuate the taint of the Fourth Amendment violation.  State’s comparison of the discovery of an expired license plate to the discovery of an outstanding warrant in Strieff is rejected. Third, the panel’s discussion of the flagrancy factor was partially incorrect and narrow, lacking a discussion of the officer’s subjective good faith.  The panel’s implied conclusion that the search of Christian’s vehicle was a proper search incident to arrest for no proof of insurance conflicts with the permissible scope for search of a vehicle. It was not reasonable for officers to believe they would find evidence of the lack-of-insurance crime in the vehicle. Guidance judgment of court of appeals affirming the district court on the single issue subject to review is reversed. Judgment of district court is reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 20-3018(b), 22-2402

appeals—constitutional law—criminal procedure—
evidence—fourth amendment—motions
state v. sanders
shawnee district court—affirmed
court of appeals—reversed
NO. 118,640—july 26, 2019

FACTS: Officers stopped, handcuffed and searched Sanders after he walked away from car and then allegedly ran and attempted to conceal himself by standing behind a drainpipe in the alleyway. Sanders was arrested upon discovery of outstanding warrant. Further search of his possessions resulted in drug charges. Sanders filed motion to suppress, arguing he had been unlawfully seized and searched. The district court granted the motion, noting inconsistencies and problems with officers’ testimony. State filed interlocutory appeal. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals panel upheld the district court’s finding that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Sanders, but reversed suppression of the evidence, applying the attenuation doctrine analysis in Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. __ (2016), based on discovery of Sanders’ outstanding arrest warrant. Sanders petitioned for review of the panel’s application of the attenuation doctrine. State cross-petitioned for review, arguing Sanders’ attempt to conceal himself and flee from the police was sufficient evidence for reasonable suspicion, and the inventory of possessions on arrest and booking would sustain application of the inevitable discovery doctrine.

ISSUES: (1) Reasonable suspicion to detain, (2) attenuation doctrine, (3) inevitable discovery

HELD: The only evidence that Sanders attempted to flee and conceal himself was the officer’s supposition which district court found incredible.  Under facts and circumstances in this case, State failed to show error in district court’s conclusion that the officers’ initial seizure of Sanders was unsupported by probable cause.

            Background of attenuation doctrine and exclusionary rule is reviewed.  The three attenuation doctrine factors stated in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975), are discussed and applied.  Here, all three factors favor suppression.  First, the timing between the investigatory detention without reasonable suspicion and the discovery of the outstanding warrant were in close proximity.   Second, the initial search of Sanders before discovery of the preexisting warrant was not an intervening circumstance that broke the causal chain between the unconstitutional seizure and search because Strieff’s reasoning was specific to a search incident to arrest after the warrant is discovered.  Third, officers committed several unconstitutional violations, and their actions were purposeful and flagrant misconduct.

            State did not preserve its arguments about either the inevitable discovery doctrine or an inventory search exception.   District court appropriately suppressed the evidence based on the arguments presented.  Judgment of Court of Appeals reversing the district court is reversed.  Judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

STATUTE:  K.S.A. 20-3018(c)

appeals—appellate procedure—constitutional law—
criminal procedure—evidence—motions—statutes
state v. soto
sedgwick district court—reversed and remanded
NO. 117,059—july 26, 2019

FACTS:  Soto convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. Convictions affirmed but hard-50 sentence vacated pursuant to Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and case remanded to district court for resentencing. Mandate signed in May 2014. Prior to resentencing, State discovered and shared with the defense some polygraph evidence that was contrary to testimony of a key witness against Soto. Soto filed June 2016 motion seeking a new trial based on a Brady violation and newly discovered evidence. He also argued the mandate rule did not apply because it prohibited only relitigation of issues and the Brady violation had never been litigated. State opposed the motion, and filed notice it would no longer seek a hard-50 sentence. Soto filed amended motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to discover the witness polygraphs and related statements. District court denied the motion without addressing merits of the Brady claim, and resentenced Soto to hard 25 life sentence. Soto appealed. State’s brief argued in part the mandate rule eliminated district court’s subject matter jurisdiction beyond that necessary to replace Soto’s vacated hard 50 sentence. State also argued the motion for new trial was not filed within the two-years of final judgment. 

ISSUES:  (1) Mandate rule - subject matter jurisdiction, (2) timeliness of motion for new trial, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel

HELD:  K.S.A. 60-2106(c) and K.S.A. 20-108, designed to enforce the hierarchy of Kansas courts, were not designed to set up broad limits on subject matter jurisdiction once a case was remanded.  Soto sought district court action on a legal issue arising from facts unknown to him until the morning his resentencing trial was set to begin.  Mandate rule would not have prevented the judge from reaching the merits of the Brady issue. 

            Where Soto’s conviction was affirmed on appeal but some part of the sentence was vacated and remanded to the district court for resentencing, there was no final sentence, hence no final judgment under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3501(1).  District judge could have heard Soto’s motion seeking a new trial.  By failing to recognize he was legally authorized to hear merits of the Brady claim, district judge’s denial of Soto’s motion qualified as an abuse of discretion.  Case is remanded to evaluate merits of the Brady claim and whether discovery of the polygraph reports is so significant that new trial on Soto’s guilt is required.

             No need to reach merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim which Soto advanced only because it might make a procedure other than a motion for new trial available. 

STATUTES:  K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6806(c), 22-3501(1), -3717(b)(2)(B); K.S.A. 20-108, -3401, 60-1507, -2106(c)

constitutional law—criminal procedure—evidence
fourth amendment—motions
state v. tatro
saline district court—remanded with directions
court of appeals—reversed
NO. 118,237—july 26, 2019

FACTS: An officer stopped Tatro who was walking with a flashlight in middle of a public street in a high-crime area for vehicle burglaries. Tatro was arrested when a warrant check disclosed an outstanding warrant. Seizure and search of Tatro’s purse resulted in Tatro being charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. She moved to suppress evidence, arguing she had been unconstitutionally detained and searched. District court granted the motion. State filed interlocutory appeal. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals upheld the district court’s finding that the encounter was involuntary and officer’s detention of Tatro was unsupported by reasonable suspicion. But it reversed district court’s ultimate decision, relying on Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. __ (2016), to hold an intervening circumstance attenuated the taint of an unlawful seizure and thus did not invalidate a later search. Tatro’s petition for review was granted. 

ISSUE: (1) Attenuation doctrine

HELD: The panel’s holding that the officer unconstitutionally seized Tatro is accepted because the State did not cross-petition for review of this adverse holding. The background of the exclusionary rule and attenuation doctrine is reviewed. The three attenuation doctrine factors stated in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975), are discussed and applied. The district court did not err in finding the temporal proximity factor favored suppression, but the intervention factor strongly favored the State. Under Strief, the district court erred in failing to consider the officer’s discovery of an arrest warrant as a circumstance that intervened between the officer’s illegal detention of Tatro and the search of her purse after arresting her on the warrant. The district court’s findings are too unclear to determine whether it correctly decided the flagrancy factor. The case was remanded to district court for further appropriate findings of fact under the correct legal standard. 

STATUTE: K.S.A. 20-3018(b), 22-2402

 

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

UNINSURED MOTORIST
HEMENWAY V. AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE
JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 120,358—JULY 26, 2019

FACTS: E.H. and the rest of her family were injured in an auto accident caused by another driver. The at-fault driver's insurance policy covered bodily injury up to $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. E.H.'s parents' own insurance policy had underinsured motorist coverage. After all of the claims were filed, the at-fault driver's policy settled up to policy limits with all of the injured parties. Both E.H. and her father filed a claim with Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, their insurer, for UIM benefits. ACIIE disputed the amount of UIM benefits due to E.H., and she filed suit in district court for breach of contract. E.H. believed she was due $38,000, which was the $50,000 per person UIM limit minus the $12,000 she received from the at-fault driver's coverage. ACIIE countered that the $50,000 limit was per accident and not per person. The district court agreed with E.H. and awarded her $38,000, subject to her actually proving damages. ACIIE appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Amount of UIM coverage available; (2) effect of state law

HELD: When calculating the amount of UIM coverage available, the district court should have added together everything that the family received from the at-fault driver's insurance coverage and subtracted that from the $100,000 per occurrence cap available through ACIIE. That results in a maximum available benefit to E.H. of $35,000. Any language in ACIIE's policy that attempts to limit coverage runs counter to the mandatory language of K.S.A. 40-284(b) and is void and unenforceable.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 40-284(b), -284(e)

criminal 

constitutional law—criminal procedure—fourth amendment—motions
state v. Arrizabalaga
saline district court—affirmed
NO. 120,209—july 26, 2019

FACTS: Trooper stopped Arrizabalaga on I-70 for traffic infraction, and noted the van smelled of a strong odor-masking product and was filled with boxes and bags. Ticket issued when dispatch confirmed Arrizabalaga’s license was valid and provided criminal history.  Arrizabalaga consented to further questioning about criminal record and to search of his van, but withdrew consent some 24 minutes into the stop when trooper stated he was searching for large amount of drugs and asked passenger to exit the van. Arrizabalaga was then detained for another 24 minutes for police dog to arrive. Dog alert resulted in Arrizabalaga’s arrest on drug charges. Arrizabalaga filed motion to suppress. District court denied the motion, finding in part that reasonable suspicion existed for the initial traffic stop, and that Arrizabalaga consented to additional questions until withdrawing his consent for search of the van. Arrizabalaga filed second motion to suppress, arguing the length of detention for drug dog’s arrival was too long.  District court granted this motion, based on trooper’s lack of diligence in pursuing purpose of stop, and holding Arrizabalaga for excessive time until drug dog arrived. State filed interlocutory appeal, citing Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), to argue the length of detention does not matter once trooper has reasonable suspicion during a traffic stop.

ISSUE: (1) Traffic stop—duration of detention

HELD: No Kansas caselaw directly addresses the narrow issue in this case as to whether trooper was diligent enough in verifying or dispelling his suspicion of drugs after finding reasonable suspicion. State’s reliance on Rodriguez is criticized. Here, district court properly applied analysis in United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985), to find in context of facts of this case that the length of the stop was excessive. Substantial competent evidence supports district court’s finding that trooper failed to diligently and reasonably pursue the purpose of the stop, because he did nothing about his suspicion until the second 24-minute period began.

DISSENT (Gardner, J.):  Would reverse the district court’s suppression of evidence. Neither the law nor facts in this case suggest that Arrizabalaga’s detention for 24 minutes based on trooper’s reasonable suspicion of a crime was unreasonable. No Kansas case has examined the permitted length of a detention justified by reasonable suspicion after the conclusion of a traffic stop to get a drug dog on site, but federal cases are cited and discussed. No authority suggests due diligence requires officer to call a drug dog as soon as the officer reasonably suspects criminal activity is occurring, particularly where other factors, such as consent, show no need for a drug dog at the time. Under facts in this case, trooper was diligent in trying to get drug dog as soon as possible under the circumstances.   

STATUTES:  K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3608; K.S.A. 22-2402(1)

criminal procedure—motions—sentences
state v. schulze
saline district court—sentence vacated and case remanded
NO. 119,184—july 26, 2019

FACTS: Schulze entered no contest plea to felony theft. District court imposed sentence using a PSI report that showed a criminal history score of C and listed 18 prior convictions. Shortly after sentencing, court services provided an amended PSI that increased criminal score to B and listed 23 prior convictions, including two person misdemeanors not included in the original report. State moved to correct an illegal sentence. District court granted the motion and imposed an increased sentence, holding the original sentence violated applicable statutory provisions requiring all of a defendant’s prior convictions to be counted. Schulze appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Sentencing - error in presentence report

HELD: Schulze’s original sentence controls. State has burden of proving the defendant’s criminal history score, and if it fails to find one or more convictions, it is prohibited from later amending, and ultimately increasing, the severity level of the defendant’s criminal history for the crime(s) at issue. Based on State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015), and State v. Weber, 297 Kan. 805 (2013), State cannot later challenge the factual basis for Schulze’s criminal history score when it failed to object to it before the district court. Invited error rule, and distinction between factual and legal stipulations, are discussed.  

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504; K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6810(c), -6810(d)(6), -6811(a), -6814(a), -6814(b), 22-3504; K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6804(a)

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

July 19, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

CIVIL

CONTEMPT
IN RE PATERNITY OF S.M.J. V. OGLE
DOUGLAS DISTRICT COURT—COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED
DISTRICT COURT IS VACATED—CASE REMANDED
NO. 115,776—JULY 19, 2019

FACTS: Ogle and Jacobs were involved in a paternity and custody proceeding. It turned contentious, enough that the district court ordered Ogle to cease widespread slander of Jacobs. Ogle did not stop, and Jacobs moved the court to hold him in indirect contempt after his comments caused her to lose her job. The district court held Ogle in indirect contempt, even though neither Ogle nor his attorney appeared at the contempt hearing. Ogle appealed and the court of appeals vacated the contempt finding, holding that the district court could not hold Ogle in indirect contempt when he did not appear at the hearing. Jacobs' petition for review was granted.

ISSUE: (1) Necessity of personal appearance at the hearing

HELD: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 20-1204a does not specifically mention whether an accused must appear at the hearing. But after reading all of the statute's provisions together, it is clear that a district court judge is allowed to proceed with a contempt hearing once the person accused is present, but not before.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 20-1204a

criminal 

criminal law—criminal procedure—jury instructions—motions—statutes
state v. cottrell
sedgwick district court—affirmed
court of appeals—affirmed
no. 114,635 —july 19, 2019

FACTS: Undercover officer (Padron) obtained hydrocodone and oxycodone from Cottrell, through sale set up by his daughter. Jury convicted Cottrell of distributing a controlled substance and conspiring to distribute a controlled substance. On appeal, Cottrell claimed: (1) district court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction because State alleged multiple overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy; (2) alternatively, the overt acts alleged were alternative means to commit the crime of conspiracy, and State failed to produce sufficient evidence to support each one; (3) district court erred in instructing jury that “knowingly” was the culpable mental state for distribution of a controlled substance; and (4) district court erred in denying Cottrell’s motion for judgment of acquittal because insufficient evidence supported the charges. Court of appeals affirmed. 53 Kan. App. 2d 425 (2017). Review granted.

ISSUES: (1) Unanimity instruction—multiple acts; (2) alternative means—crime of conspiracy; (3) jury instruction; (4) motion for acquittal

HELD: No unanimity instruction was required because alleging several overt acts in furtherance of one conspiracy does not present a multiple acts case. State presented arguments and evidence about one agreement between Cottrell and his daughter: to illegally sell hydrocodone and oxycodone to Padron.

Jury instruction that lists several overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy does not create alternative means for the crime of conspiracy.

Following State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (2012), only language of a statute can create alternative means for a crime, and the conspiracy statute does not do so. State v. Enriquez, 46 Kan. App. 2d 765 (2011), is overruled. A jury instruction listing more than one overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy does not create alternative means. Instead, such an instruction merely describes the factual scenarios that could prove the material element of an overt act.

Invited error precludes reaching the merits of Cottrell’s jury instruction challenge. Cottrell actively pursued an instruction for distribution of a controlled substance that included a knowing culpable mental state, was unwavering in this request, and any error was as obvious before trial as after. Defense counsel also stated on the record that he did not object to the final instruction.

No error in district court’s denial of the motion for acquittal. No appellate reweighing of Cottrell’s testimony, and significant evidence supported Cottrell’s knowledge that he was distributing controlled substances

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5302(a), -5402(c); K.S.A. 2912 Supp. 21-5302(a)

constitutional law—criminal law—jurisdiction
motions—securities—statutes
state v. lundberg
sedgwick district court—affirmed
court of appeals—reversed
no. 114,897—july 19, 2019

FACTS: Minnesota residents Lundberg and Elzufon, formed a Minnesota corporation they registered to do business in Kansas to develop properties in downtown Wichita. As principals for four Kansas limited liability corporations (LLCs), they sold securities by using intermediaries who resided in California who made sales presentations in California and sold the securities from California to individuals who did not reside in Kansas.  State filed criminal charges under the Kansas Uniform Securities Act (KUSA) against Lundberg and Elzufon for selling or offering to sell unregistered securities and committing fraud in selling or offering to sell securities. Lundberg and Elzufon filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing neither the offers to sell, the sales, the offers to purchase, nor the purchases were made or accepted in Kansas. Parties stipulated to the facts for deciding this motion. District court dismissed 56 of the counts related to sales involving the California intermediaries, rejecting State’s argument that any of the offers originated within Kansas. State voluntarily dismissed remaining charges and appealed. Court of Appeals reversed. 53 Kan.App.2d 721 (2017). Lundberg’s and Elzufon’s petitions for review granted.

ISSUE: (1) Jurisdiction for criminal charges - KUSA

HELD: KUSA is interpreted, examining “sale,” “offer to sell,” and whether “multiple sales” were consummated in Kansas. Nexus analysis applied by Court of Appeals is rejected. Even under expansive reading permitted by definition of “offer to sell” in KUSA, Kansas’ jurisdiction is statutorily limited to situations in which the offer originates within the territorial boundaries of Kansas—not just because the transaction has some sort of “nexus” to the state. On facts in this case the sales were not made in Kansas nor did the offers to sell originate in Kansas, thus no jurisdiction exists based on a sale occurring in Kansas.  

CONCURRENCE (Vano, D.Judge assigned): There is no stipulated fact regarding the place where any offer to sell originated, and the word “nexus” appears nowhere in the KUSA. The jurisdictional statute, K.S.A. 17-12a610, limits criminal sanction to sales or offers to sell originating within the state. On the stipulated facts in this case, the offers did not occur or originate in Kansas.  Dissent goes too far in adding a penal reach that is not expressed by the Legislature and is inconsistent with Kansas precedent on reading, construing, and applying criminal statutes and sanctions strictly in favor of the accused, and keeping the court out of the business of drafting legislation—particularly penal sanctions.

DISSENT (Luckert, J.) (joined by Beier and Rosen, JJ.): Would interpret the offers as originating with and the sales being made by the Kansas LLCs acting through their officers and shareholders—Lundberg and Elzufon—to retain California intermediaries who extended the Kansas LLCs’ offers to California investors. These acts are sufficient to say the sales or offers to sell originated in Kansas. Thus application of Kansas law and jurisdiction is proper, and applying KUSA here does not violate any federal constitutional restriction against extraterritorial application of Kansas law.   

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 17-12a302, -12a303, -12a508(a)(2), -12a508(a)(3), -7662 et seq., -7663(1), -7668, 21-5106; K.S.A.17-12a101 et seq., -12a102, -12a102(17), -12a102(26), -12a310, -12a304, -12a501, -12a501(2), -12a501(3), -12a508, -12a610, -12a610(a), -12a610(b), -12a610(c), -12a610(e), 60-2101(b)

appellate procedurecriminal lawstatutes
state v. Rizal
johnson district court—affirmed; court of appeals—affirmed
no. 115,036 —july 19, 2019

FACTS: In bench trial on stipulated facts, Rizal convicted of possessing a controlled substance —naphthoylindole (“K2”), a synthetic cannabinoid — with intent to distribute it at gas station she owned. Rizal appealed, claiming in part that insufficient evidence supported the conviction because State only proved she knowingly sold what she thought was “incense,” and not that  she possessed K2 with “knowledge” as defined in McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. __ (2015). Court of Appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion, distinguishing McFadden from the Kansas statute, but also finding substantial competent evidence if McFadden applied. Review granted. In supplemental brief Rizal argued new claim that that the substance she possessed was not a controlled substance, but a controlled substance analog, based on her lay analysis of chemical compounds in packets sold.

ISSUES: (1) New claim on appeal; (2) knowledge of nature of the controlled substance; (3) sufficiency of the evidence

HELD: Rizal’s new analog argument is unpreserved and not reviewed. Undisputed fact in the record that Rizal possessed the controlled substance naphthoylindole.

Court examines what it means to “knowingly” exercise control over a controlled substance, finding Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5705(a)’s knowledge requirement. To convict a defendant of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5705(a), State must prove the defendant had knowledge of the nature of the controlled substance. This knowledge requirement can be established by proving the defendant either knew the identity of the substance or knew that the substance was controlled. A mistake of fact about the nature of a controlled substance can negate the knowledge requirement.

Under facts in this case, Rizal’s conviction is affirmed because State presented sufficient evidence that Rizal knew the substance was controlled.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5207(a); K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-455(b); K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5202(i), -5701(a), -5701(q), -5705(a), -5705(a)(7), -5705(c)(1)(A), 65-4101(bb)(1), -4101(bb)(2), -4105(h)(2); K.S.A. 60-455

appellate procedure—criminal procedure
evidence—jury instructions—prosecutors
state v. ross
sedgwick district court—affirmed
no. 117,850—july 19, 2019

FACTS: Ross convicted of felony murder and second-degree murder as a lesser included offense of premeditated murder, and felony abuse of a child. On appeal he claimed: (1) State committed prosecutorial error during rebuttal closing argument by stating the jury must find the defendant guilty if it did not believe the defendant’s testimony; (2) district court violated Ross’ statutory right to lesser included offense instructions by not offering an instruction on unintentional but reckless second-degree murder as a lesser included offense of premeditated murder; (3) district court erred in admitting into evidence two recorded jail phone calls between Ross and his mother; (4) pro se additional issues claiming the jury’s verdict operated as a de facto acquittal on the charge of first-degree felony murder, and claiming K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5109(b)(1) infringed his right to present a complete defense; and (5) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Prosecutorial error; (2) jury instruction; (3) admission of phone call evidence; (4) supplemental issues raised pro se; (5) cumulative error

HELD: Prosecutor’s misstatement was error, but in context of prosecutor’s surrounding comments did not effectively shift burden of proof. No reversible error shown.

An instruction on reckless second-degree murder was legally appropriate, but whether it was factually appropriate is immaterial because any error in failing to offer the instruction was harmless. On evidence in the case, no reasonable probability that jury could have inferred the killing of the child victim was done unintentionally but recklessly.

No error in admitting the two phone calls. Probative value of the calls far outweighed the resulting prejudice.

Ross’ newly raised arguments were insufficiently preserved for appellate review.

Aggregated effect of prosecutor’s misstatement which did not prejudice Ross’ right to a fair trial, and assumed instructional error which was harmless, did not constitute reversible error.             

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5108, -5109(b)(1), -5403(a)(2); K.

 

Kansas Court of Appeals

CIVIL

DUE PROCESS—PARENTAL RIGHTS
IN RE J.L.
SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 120,504—JULY 19, 2019

FACTS: In April 2018 the State sought to have J.L. declared to be a child in need of care. Later that year, the State scheduled a pretrial conference hearing. Notice was mailed, but Father's address was listed as "unknown." Father's attorney appeared at that pretrial conference hearing, but Father was not in the room when the hearing started. Because of his absence, the State moved for a default judgment on the CINC petition. Father appeared within 10 minutes of the start of the hearing and moved to set aside the default judgment. Father appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Due process violation

HELD: Father has a fundamental liberty interest in parenting his child. Finding J.L. to be a CINC opens Father up to further intervention and potential liberty deprivations. To protect against undue deprivations, the State is required to prove the need for adjudication by clear and convincing evidence. It is uncertain that any portion of the default judgment statute can apply to proceedings held under the juvenile code. Further, Father was never told that a CINC adjudication would occur at the pretrial conference hearing. Even the State did not anticipate the finding and there were no witnesses available. Nothing about the default judgment advanced the State's interests or J.L.'s wellbeing; this was about the district court's annoyance. The default judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2239, -2248(e), -2250, -2251(a), 60-255, -255(a)

GRIEVANCE—HABEAS CORPUS
PETERSON V. SCHNURR
RENO DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 119,869—JULY 19, 2019

FACTS: Peterson is an inmate who subscribed to a newspaper. The correctional facility seized two issues of the paper, claiming that they had content which was a threat to the facility's safety. Peterson appealed the seizure and the decision was upheld by the Secretary of Corrections' designee. Peterson then filed an inmate grievance claiming he was subject to improper censorship. That grievance was denied. Peterson followed up by filing a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition, arguing that the Department of Corrections was not properly applying its own regulations regarding censorship. The district court denied the petition as untimely, and Peterson appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Timeliness of petition

HELD: Peterson's use of the facility grievance procedure was not part of his administrative remedies and did not toll the time in which to file his 60-1501 petition. Because the time limit was not tolled, the district court properly dismissed Peterson's petition as untimely.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-1501, -1501(b); K.S.A. 75-52,138

Tags:  8807  Johnson District  Reno District  Sedgwick District  Shawnee District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

July 12, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administrator, Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Updated: Monday, July 15, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

CIVIL

CHILDREN—JURISDICTION
IN RE A.A.-F.
GEARY DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals—AFFIRMED
NO. 117,368—July 12, 2019

FACTS: These proceedings involve five of Mother's six children. Two of the children were born in Kansas. All of the children were subject to child in need of care proceedings while living in California. After a fight with her husband, Mother brought the children to Kansas without telling anyone. The California court revoked the children's physical placement with Mother and ordered them returned to California. The children returned, and the California court began to inquire about a possible placement with the children's grandmother, who resides in Kansas. In June 2015, the California court cited the UCCJEA and transferred the case to Kansas. After several years working on reintegration, the State sought termination of Mother's parental rights. At a hearing, Mother argued that Kansas lacked jurisdiction. The district court overruled Mother's concerns about jurisdiction and, after hearing evidence, terminated her parental rights. In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the record did not show that UCCJEA jurisdiction properly passed from California to Kansas and found it was error for the district court to so find. But, it ruled that any error was harmless because there was home state jurisdiction in Kansas by the time the termination hearing occurred. Mother's petition for review was granted.

ISSUES: (1) Subject matter jurisdiction; (2) procedural due process rights

HELD:When the CINC proceedings began, California was the children's home state. The California order transferring the case to Kansas did not specify what provision of the UCCJEA is relied on when ceding jurisdiction. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the record on appeal to show exactly what happened in California. Nevertheless, the transfer order from California gave the Kansas court jurisdiction, and Kansas knew that California would not still be trying to make decisions in the case. Principles of comity apply to the California transfer order, even though it was not a final decision in this case. There was no abuse of discretion when Kansas accepted jurisdiction in this case, in accordance with the purposes of the UCCJEA. The failure to hold a hearing within 30 days did not violate Mother's due process rights.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 23-37,102(b), -37,110(a), -37,110(b), -37,110(d), -37,110(e), -37,201, -37,202, -37,202(a)(1), -37,202(a)(2), -37,207, -37,313, 38-2202(d), -2203; K.S.A. 20-301

HABEAS CORPUS
BREEDLOVE V. STATE
Sedgwick District Court—Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, Case remanded
Court of Appeals—AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
NO. 115,401—July 12, 2019

FACTS: Breedlove was convicted of felony murder in 1995. His conviction and sentence were reversed and he was retried, where he was again convicted of first-degree murder. That conviction and sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. Breedlove timely filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion which sat in district court for two years. Breedlove sent letters inquiring about the status of his motion. When those letters did not get a response, Breedlove attempted to file a motion for summary disposition. The district court refused to file the motion for summary disposition unless Breedlove paid a $195 filing fee. Breedlove eventually paid the fee. The district court, on multiple occasions, emailed the prosecutor's office requesting a response. After another email, the State responded, and the district court adopted the State's findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying Breedlove's motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues, including Breedlove's challenge to the imposition of the filing fee for the motion for summary disposition. Breedlove's petition for review was granted.

ISSUES: (1) Adoption of findings; (2) appointment of counsel; (3) ineffective assistance; (4) imposition of filing fee

HELD: There is no bright-line rule which prevents a district court from adopting in total a party's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The statutory right to counsel is triggered only when the district court finds that a 60-1507 motion presents substantial questions of law or triable issues of fact. The district court was not required to appoint counsel for Breedlove. There is no evidence that any of Breedlove's attorneys were ineffective. Any argument made to the contrary is conclusory and without support in the record. Demanding a docketing fee in a case that was opened with a poverty affidavit is plain error. Breedlove should never have been charged, and the case is remanded so that he may be refunded.

CONCURRENCE: (Stegall, J.) There was no separation of powers violation because Breedlove failed to prove that the district court failed to conduct an independent review of the record. But prosecutors should never have judicial or quasi-judicial function.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-2008, -2008(a), -2008(b); K.S.A. 60-1507, -1507(b)

HABEAS CORPUS
DAWSON V. STATE
Sedgwick District Court—Affirmed
Court of Appeals—AFFIRMED
NO. 115,129—July 12, 2019

FACTS: Dawson was convicted of a child sex crime. His conviction was affirmed on appeal and after that, Dawson filed multiple K.S.A. 60-1507 motions. All of those motions were decided adversely and affirmed on appeal. In 2015, Dawson filed his fourth 60-1507 motion in which he argued ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice due to the State's destruction of evidence that was potentially exculpatory. After Dawson filed the motion, the district court emailed the State and asked the State to respond to Dawson's motion. The State's response asked that the motion be denied as time-barred and successive. The district court agreed and denied the motion. That decision was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals, which found no error in the district court's solicitation of a response from the State. The Supreme Court granted Dawson's petition for review.

ISSUES: (1) Solicitation of written response; (2) right to counsel; (3) timeliness of State's response to motion; (4) adequacy of forms; (5) right to an evidentiary hearing

HELD: A district court's review of a State's filed response to a 60-1507 motion, standing alone, does not create an indigent movant's right to counsel. Because the district court did not hold a hearing, Dawson did not have the right to counsel even if the response was solicited by the district court. A 60-1507 movant has only a statutory right to counsel. The court is not required to appoint counsel for an indigent movant while the merits of the motion are still being weighed. The 7-day response timeline of Rule 133(b) is not jurisdictional. Dawson's challenge to the adequacy of Judicial Council forms was not raised in any prior proceeding. In addition, Dawson shows no prejudice resulting from any alleged deficiency in the form. It was not error to find that Dawson failed to establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a hearing on his 60-1507 motion.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 60-1507, -1507(f)(2)

HABEAS CORPUS
REQUENA V. STATE
BUTLER DISTRICT COURT—Court of Appeals IS AFFIRMED
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED
NO. 116,251—July 12, 2019

FACTS: Requena was convicted of rape in 1999. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. A few years later, Requena filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, arguing the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The motion was summarily dismissed and that decision was also affirmed on appeal. In 2014, Requena filed a second 60-1507 motion. He repeated his claim of ineffective assistance plus added new issues. The State filed a response and the district court summarily denied the motion, although the district court did not address Requena's claim that he could not be convicted because he was a sovereign citizen. The Court of Appeals affirmed; the opinion included a finding that Requena's sovereign citizen claim was meritless. The Supreme Court accepted Requena's petition for review.

ISSUES: (1) Consideration of written response; (2) Murdock claim

HELD: Considering a written response is not the same as holding a hearing. The right to have counsel appointed only attaches if a hearing is held. In this case, the district court had no obligation to appoint counsel for Requena and his due process rights were not violated. Because this 60-1507 motion was untimely, Requena had the burden to show that not giving him relief would result in manifest injustice. Requena's issues raise no substantial issues of law, and Murdock cannot apply because all of Requena's prior convictions occurred in Kansas.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 60-1507

HABEAS CORPUS
SHERWOOD V. STATE
Sedgwick District Court
Court of Appeals IS AFFIRMED
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED
NO. 115,899—July 12, 2019

FACTS: Sherwood was convicted of rape in 1997. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. More than 15 years after the mandate was issued, Sherwood filed a pro se K.S.A. 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing errors. The State responded, asking that the motion be denied as untimely. The district court summarily denied the motion, finding that not only was it time barred but also meritless. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and Sherwood's petition for review was granted.

ISSUES: (1) Appointment of counsel; (2) adequacy of form; (3) adequacy of findings; (4) merits of the claim

HELD: Considering the State's written response is not the same as a hearing. Counsel must be appointed for an indigent 60-1507 movant if a hearing is held, but the appointment of counsel is discretionary in the absence of a hearing. Sherwood's use of the Judicial Council form did not result in a due process violation or any prejudice. Sherwood appeared to know that he was required to prove manifest injustice. The district court's order, while concise, adequately conveyed the reasons for the denial of Sherwood's motion. The lower courts correctly found that Sherwood failed to show manifest injustice that would excuse the untimeliness of his claim. There is little evidence to support Sherwood's theory that he had a right to have appointed counsel file a writ of certiorari for him.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 60-1507

HABEAS CORPUS
STEWART V. STATE
Sedgwick District Court
Court of Appeals IS AFFIRMED
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED
NO. 115,149—July 12, 2019

FACTS: Stewart was convicted of aggravated robbery and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. He filed a timely K.S.A. 60-1507 motion which is the subject of this appeal. In that motion, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel among other errors. Almost a year later, the State filed a response to the motion. It is unknown whether the district court asked the State to respond or whether the State responded of its own volition. The district court denied Stewart's motion, adopting the State's arguments and authorities as persuasive. Stewart appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals, arguing that it was a due process violation for the district court to consider the State's written response without appointing counsel for him. The Court of Appeals agreed that it was error for the district court to consider the State's response without appointing counsel. But it found that the error was harmless because Stewart's 60-1507 motion contained no valid claims. The Supreme Court accepted Stewart's petition for review on the lack of error and the State's cross-petition on whether Stewart was due counsel before the State's written response could be considered.

ISSUES: (1) Appointment of counsel; (2) substantive claims

HELD: There is a statutory right to counsel in a 60-1507 proceeding. In the district court, that right exists only when a motion presents substantial questions of law or triable issues of fact. The right to counsel does not exist if there is merely a potential substantial issue that would trigger the statutory right to counsel. The district court may, but is not required, to appoint counsel for an indigent 60-1507 movant while the merits of the motion are still being decided. A movant is entitled to counsel if the district court holds a hearing at which the State will be represented. But that right does not extend to the district court's consideration of a written response to a motion. There is no evidence that counsel's performance was deficient. Nothing else in the motion warranted an evidentiary hearing, and the district court properly denied the motion without a hearing.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 22-4506, -4506(b), 60-1507, -1507(b)

HABEAS CORPUS
THUKO V. STATE
Sedgwick District Court—AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals—AFFIRMED

NO. 115,662 —July 12, 2019

FACTS: Thuko was convicted of sex charges in 2004. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Thuko filed one K.S.A. 60-1507 motion in 2008, which was ultimately denied. Thuko filed a second 60-1507 motion in 2014. After some months passed, the district court solicited a response from the State. After the response was filed, the district court summarily denied Thuko's motion, finding that it was both untimely and successive and failing to find any manifest injustice that would allow for a successive motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and Thuko's petition for review was granted.

ISSUES: (1) Right to counsel; (2) right to a hearing

HELD:A 60-1507 movant has a statutory right to counsel that attaches only if the district court finds substantial questions of law or triable issues of fact. The district court is not required to appoint counsel while it is evaluating the merits of the motion, although it must appoint counsel if a hearing is held at which the State is represented. A written response to the motion is not a hearing, and no right to counsel attaches. Thuko did not prove the existence of either manifest injustice or exceptional circumstances to excuse his untimely and successive 60-1507 motion. For these reasons, his motion was properly summarily denied.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 60-1507, -1507(c), -1507(f)(1)

criminal

constitutional law—criminal procedure—motions—
postconviction remedies—sentences—statutes
state v. dawson
Sedgwick District Court—affirmed
Court of Appeals—affirmed
NO. 116,530—July 12, 2019

FACTS: Relying on State v. McAlister, 54 Kan.App.2d 65 (2017)(McAlister I), Dawson filed 2015 motion alleging his 1997 sentence was illegal because his pre-Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act burglary conviction should have been classified as a nonperson crime District court summarily denied the motion as procedurally barred. Applying State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217 (2016)(Dickey II), Court of Appeals affirmed. 55 Kan.App.2d 109 (2017). Dawson’s petition for review granted.

ISSUE: (1) Motion to correct an illegal sentence—legality of the sentence

HELD: See State v. McAlister, __ Kan. __ (2019)(this day decided), reversing holding in McAlister I. Pursuant to State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585 (2019)(Murdock II), the point in time to assess a sentence’s legality for purposes of a K.S.A. 22-3504(1) motion to correct an illegal sentence is the moment the sentence was pronounced. If a sentence was legal when pronounced, subsequent changes in the law will not render it illegal and amenable to correction under K.S.A. 22-3504(1). The rule in Dickey I and Dickey II derived directly from Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), a change in the law after Dawson’s sentence became final. Pursuant to Murdock II, Dawson cannot avail himself of that subsequent change in the law. District court’s denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence is affirmed.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3); K.S.A. 22-3504, -3504(1), 60-1507

constitutional law—criminal procedure—motions—
postconviction remedies—sentences—STATUTES
State v. Laughlin
Sedgwick District Court—Affirmed
NO. 117,156—July 12, 2019

FACTS: More than ten years after his felony-murder conviction, Laughlin filed pro se motions to correct an illegal sentence and to withdraw his plea. District court summarily denied the motions. On appeal Laughlin argued the district court erred by considering the State’s written responses to his motions without appointing counsel to represent him, and claimed his sentence is illegal because his convictions are multiplicitous.

ISSUES: (1) Due process right to appointment of counsel; (2) summary denial of motion to correct an illegal sentence

HELD: State v. Redding, __ Kan. __ (2019)(this day decided), affirmed treating K.S.A. 22-3504 motions like K.S.A. 60-1507 motions when determining whether appointment of counsel is required, held that due process of law requires appointment of counsel at a hearing on a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion where the State is represented by counsel unless the defendant waives that right, and determined that a district court’s consideration of State’s response to a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion is not the equivalent of a hearing. Taken together, State v. Jackson, 255 Kan. 455 (1994), and State v. Hemphill, 296 Kan. 583 (2008), confirm that post-sentence plea withdrawal motions are treated like K.S.A. 60-1507 motions for purposes of determining whether the right to counsel was triggered. Thus rules announced in State v. Stewart, __ Kan. __ (2019)(this day decided) apply. Laughlin’s statutory right to counsel was not triggered for either motion because district court did not find a substantial issue of law or triable issue of fact. Moreover, district did not conduct a hearing on either motion, and its consideration of State’s written response did not equate to one.

Summary denial of the motion was appropriate because mulitplicity challenges fall outside the scope of a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3210(d)(2), -3210(e)(2), -3504(1), -3601(b)(3); K.S.A. 22-3504, 60-1507

constitutional law—criminal procedure—motions—
postconviction remedies—sentences—statutes
state v. mcalister
finney district court—affirmed and case remanded
Court of Appeals—reversed
NO. 115,887—July 12, 2019

FACTS: McAlister filed 2015 motions alleging his 1996 sentences were illegal in light of State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015)(Dickey I), because his pre-Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act burglary convictions should have been classified as nonperson felonies. District court summarily denied the motions as procedurally barred. Applying State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217 (2016)(Dickey II), Court of Appeals reversed. 54 Kan. App. 2d 65 (2017). State’s petition for review granted.

ISSUE: (1) Motion to correct an illegal sentence - legality of the sentence

HELD: McAlister’s sentences were final for purposes of post-conviction relief in February 1999, prior to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), which founded holdings in Dickey I and Dickey II. Pursuant to State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585 (2019)(Murdock II), this subsequent change in the law cannot transform a legally imposed sentence into an illegal sentence. McAlister’s sentences were legal when imposed and remained so at the time his direct appeal became final. Subsequent changes in the law did not render his sentences illegal for purposes of a K.S.A. 22-3504(1) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Court of Appeals reversal of the district court is reversed and case is remanded with directions to reinstate McAlister’s original lawful sentences.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5807(a)(1), -5807(c)(1)(A), -6811; K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 21-3715; K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq., 22-3504, -3504(1)

constitutional law—criminal procedure—motions—
postconviction remedies—sentences—statutes
state v. redding
rice district court—affirmed
Court of Appeals—affirmed
NO. 115,037—July 12, 2019

FACTS: Redding entered no contest plea to rape and aggravated indecent liberties of underage girls. Jessica’s Law sentence imposed for each count, with departure to the jointly recommended total sentence of 210 months. More than two years later he filed pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. District court denied the motion after reviewing State’s response. Redding appealed claiming: (1) his pro se motion should have been liberally construed as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion; (2) his due process rights were violated when district court requested a response from the State before summarily denying the motion without appointment of counsel; and (3) his sentence was illegal because district court did not consider his written allocution as a second motion to further depart from the grid-box numbers. Court of Appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Redding’s petition for review granted.

ISSUES: (1) Liberally construing the motion; (2) due process right to appointed counsel; (3) summary denial of motion to correct an illegal sentence

HELD: Under facts in this case, including form and content of Redding’s motion, district court did not err in construing the motion as one filed under K.S.A. 22-3504 seeking to correct an illegal sentence.

Appellate courts treat motions under K.S.A. 22-3504 like motions under K.S.A. 60-1507 motions for purposes of determining whether a hearing and appointment of counsel are required. If district court conducts a hearing to determine whether a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion presents substantial questions of law or triable issues of fact, a movant’s due process right to appointed counsel is implicated. But a district court’s review of State’s response to the motion, standing alone, is not the equivalent of a hearing and does not trigger the movant’s due process right to counsel. See State v. Stewart, __ Kan. __ (2019)(this day decided).

When district court accepts the recommendation of a plea agreement to depart from an off-grid Jessica’s Law hard-25 life sentence to a specific on-grid sentence, the court’s failure to consider a second departure to an even shorter sentence does not render the agreed-upon sentence illegal. Here, district court properly considered Redding’s initial departure motion as a request to depart from hard 25 Jessica’s law sentence to an on-grid sentence, followed statutory procedures for doing so, and was under no obligation to consider any further departures that were obliquely referenced in allocution.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(1); K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2), -3504(a)(3)(A), 22-3504, -4506(b), 60-1507, -1507(b), -1507(f)

constitutional law—criminal procedure—
motions—postconviction remedies
state v. roberts
Sedgwick District Court—affirmed;
Court of Appeals—affirmed
NO. 114,726—July 12, 2019

FACTS: In consolidated appeal, Roberts contends: (1) district court’s summary denial of the K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without appointment of counsel after receiving State’s written response to the pro se motion failed to follow protocol established in Lujan v. State, 270 Kan. 163 (2000), and thereby violated his due process rights; and (2) district court erred by denying Roberts’ request for an evidentiary hearing on the 60-1507 motion, finding the motion was untimely and successive. Court of Appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Review granted.

ISSUES: (1) Due process right to appointed counsel; (2) summary denial of K.S.A. 60-1507 motion

HELD: Stewart v. State, __ Kan. __ (2019)(this day decided), clarified that the Lujan protocol does not require appointment of counsel when the district court discerns a potentially substantial issue, albeit the court has discretion to do so. District court may, but is not required to, appoint an indigent K.S.A. 60-1507 movant an attorney during the period the court is making its determination of whether the motion, files, and records present a substantial question of law or triable issue of fact. Here, district court was not statutorily required to appoint counsel, as it determined the motion, files, and records of the case presented no substantial question of law or triable issue of fact. And district court did not conduct a hearing at which the State was represented by counsel, so as to trigger Roberts’ due process right to appointed counsel.

Roberts’ request for remand to attempt to make case to district court for exceptions to the procedural bars to his untimely and successive K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, in leu of establishing the existence of the exceptions on appeal, is denied.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 22-3402, -4506(b), 60-1507, -1507(c), -1507(f), -1507(f)(2)

constitutional law—criminal procedure—motions—
postconviction remedies—sentencing—statute
state v. tauer
Sedgwick District Court—affirmed
Court of Appeals—affirmed
NO. 114,432—July 12, 2019

FACTS: Some 20 years after his conviction and sentence became final in 1996, Tauer filed motion citing State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015 (Dickey I), and State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217 (2016)(Dickey II), and claiming his prior New Mexico juvenile conviction should have been classified as a nonperson felony in sentencing. Court of Appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Review granted due to conflicting panel opinions.

ISSUE: (1) Motion to correct illegal sentence

HELD: Issue in this case is whether Tauer’s sentence is illegal, not the date he filed his motion under K.S.A. 22-3504(1). Pursuant to State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585 (2019)(Murdock II), the point in time to assess a sentence’s legality for purposes of a K.S.A. 22-3504(1) motion to correct an illegal sentence is the moment the sentence was pronounced. If a sentence was legal when pronounced, subsequent changes in the law will not render it illegal and amenable to correction under K.S.A. 22-3504(1). The rule in Dickey I and Dickey II derived directly from Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), a change in the law after Tauer’s sentence became final. Pursuant to Murdock II, Tauer cannot avail himself of that subsequent change in the law. District court’s denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence is affirmed.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 22-3504(1)

Kansas Court of Appeals

CIVIL

SERVICE OF PROCESS—STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
COASTAL CREDIT, LLC V. MCNAIR
RILEY DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 119,798—July 12, 2019

FACTS: McNair borrowed money from Coastal Credit so that he could buy a car. After McNair defaulted, Coastal Credit repossessed the car and sold it. There was a deficiency, though, so Coastal Credit filed a limited action lawsuit against McNair seeking the remaining balance, plus interest. At the time the lawsuit was filed, McNair was deployed with the United States Army to an overseas location. His wife and children lived in off-base housing. A process server attempted to serve McNair by serving a copy at McNair's "usual place of abode" with his wife. McNair did not answer the suit or appear. Eventually, the district court granted default judgment to Coastal Credit. After noticing that his wages were being garnished, McNair moved to set aside the default judgment on grounds that service was improper. At a hearing, McNair's wife disputed that she ever received service at the apartment. The district court denied the motion to set aside and McNair appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Adequacy of service

HELD: McNair's only argument on appeal is that the judgment was void for lack of legal service of process. Although it is undisputed that McNair's family lived in Manhattan, the relevant question is the location of McNair's place of abode. The term "usual place of abode", as used in the statute, is not the same as a person's domicile. At the time process was served, McNair's usual place of abode was at his Army deployment in Africa. McNair was never properly served, and the default judgment must be set aside.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-260(b)(4), -260(c), 61-3301(c), -3301(d), -3003(d)(1), 77-201 Twenty-fourth

NEUTRAL RISK—WORKERS COMPENSATION
JOHNSON V. STORMONT VAIL HEALTHCARE
WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD—AFFIRMED
NO. 120,056—July 12, 2019

FACTS: Johnson worked as a housekeeper at Stormont Vail Hospital. In 2015, while working, Johnson tripped and fell. The resulting injury to her knee required rehabilitation and physical therapy, and kept her off work for three months. Six months later Johnson fell again. As before, she did not know what caused the fall. She broke her wrist and was again off work for an extended period. Johnson sought workers compensation benefits and an administrative law judge awarded compensation for both falls. Stormont Vail sought review from the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, arguing that Johnson's falls stemmed from neutral risks and did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. The Board disagreed, and Stormont Vail appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Causation beyond neutral risk; (2) burden of proof

HELD: The Board correctly found that walking was part of Johnson's work duties. She was working, and walking, when she fell. Both falls involved neutral risk with a particular employment character, and as such, her injuries are compensable. Johnson was not required to prove that her injuries did not result from a neutral risk. Once the Board found that Johnson met her statutory burden, the burden shifted to Stormont Vail to support its claim that there was no particular employment character tied to Johnson's activity during the falls.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 44-501b(c), -508(f)(3)(A), -508(f)(3)(A)(ii), -508(h), 77-201

Tags:  8807  burden of proof  causation  Finney District  neutral risk  Rice District  Riley District  Sedgwick District  Workers Compensation  Workers Compensation Board 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

July 5, 2019 Digest

Posted By Administration, Monday, July 8, 2019

Kansas Court of Appeals

criminal

constitutional law—criminal law—fourth amendment—
probation—sentences—statutes
state v. hinnenkamp
sedgwick district court—affirmed
No. 119,125—july 5, 2019

FACTS: District court ordered Hinnenkamp to submit to random drug and alcohol testing as a condition of probation for her aggravated escape from custody conviction. Hinnenkamp appealed, arguing K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6607(c)(6), which requires district courts to impose random drug and alcohol testing as a condition of probation, violates her federal and state constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure. State responds on merits of this argument, and also claims this issue is improperly raised for first time on appeal, jurisdiction is lacking because the issue is not ripe for consideration, and Hinnenkamp waived the issue by inadequate briefing.

ISSUES: (1) Threshold issues—preservation, ripeness, waiver; (2) constitutionality of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6607(c)(6)

HELD: Hinnenkamp is asserting her constitutional claim for first time on appeal, but her facial challenge to the constitutionality of the statute is considered. Her facial challenge to the statute is ripe for appeal, and she has not waived or abandoned her constitutional claim based on inadequate briefing.

K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6607(c)(6), which subjects probationers to suspicionless drug and alcohol testing, does not, on its face, violate the Fourth Amendment of U.S. Constitution or §15 of Kansas Bill of Rights. This mandatory statutory condition of probation is exempt from Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement because (1) special needs of the probation system make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable, and (2) the primary purpose of random drug and alcohol testing for probationers is distinguishable from State’s general interest in crime control. Weighing a probationer’s diminished expectation of privacy against State’s interest in promoting rehabilitation and probation compliance, and considering the efficacy of random suspicionless drug and alcohol testing, it is reasonable to permit a court services officer or community correctional services officer to order a probationer to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, even without any suspicion of wrongdoing. Two recent unpublished Court of Appeals opinions upholding the constitutionality of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6607(c)(6) in similar cases are cited and reviewed.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6607(c)(5), -6607(c)(6), 22-3717(k)(2); K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1025

Tags:  8807  Constitutional Law  Fourth Amendment  Probation  Sedgwick District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

June 28, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, July 1, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

ORDER OF SUSPENSION
IN RE GREGORY V. BLUME
NO. 119,027
JUNE 28, 2019

FACTS: A hearing panel determined that Blume violated KRPC 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions); 3.3(a)(1) (candor toward tribunal); 3.4(d) (compliance with discovery request); 4.4(a) (respect for rights of third persons); 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). One incident involved an allegedly inadequate response to a discovery request, two involved rude words and gestures directed at a deposition witness, and one arose out of a motion to set aside an earlier agreed judgment. Blume's actions regarding discovery resulted in the dismissal of his client's case, after the district court found that Blume's conduct was calculated and intentional.

HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel found adequate evidence to support all of the complaints levied against Blume. When considering aggravating factors, the panel noted that Blume's conduct was motivated by dishonesty and was part of a pattern of failing to show respect for other people. The disciplinary administrator recommended a one-year suspension. Blume asked for a one-year suspension but asked that it be suspended while he served a probationary term. However, the panel found that Blume's probation plan was wholly inadequate and that his misconduct could not be corrected by probation. The hearing panel agreed with the disciplinary administrator and recommended discipline of a one-year suspension.

HELD: Blume filed numerous exceptions to the hearing panel's report. Most of the exceptions were not supported by evidence that was considered by the hearing panel. At the hearing before the court, Blume explained that he planned to retire within six months. He asked that discipline be limited to a requirement that he apologize to the deposition witness. The court found Blume's objections to the findings of fact incoherent and inconsistent, and all of the hearing panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law were adopted. The court found that Blume failed to understand the nature of his mistakes and did not acknowledge the seriousness of his misconduct. Because of the serious nature of his misconduct and his failure to take responsibility, the court determined that a severe sanction was warranted. It imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.

CIVIL

CITY ORDINANCEHOME RULE
DWAGFYS MANUFACTURING, INC. V. CITY OF TOPEKA
SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT
REVERSED
NO. 119,269
JUNE 28, 2019

FACTS: The City of Topeka passed Ordinance 20099, which made it unlawful to sell cigarettes to persons under age 21, and persons under age 21 were forbidden to buy tobacco. Prior to the ordinance taking effect, a store sued the City of Topeka seeking to prevent enforcement of the ordinance as unconstitutional under the Kansas Constitution. The district court agreed, finding conflicts between the ordinance and state law. The district court both temporarily and permanently enjoined enforcement of the ordinance. The City appealed, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: (1) Statutory preemption

HELD: There is overlap between the ordinance and state statute regarding the subject matter, and the state statute is a uniform law applicable to all cities. But the Kansas Cigarette and Tobacco Products Act does not contain an express statement of preemption, and the act's "comprehensive scheme" of regulation is inadequate to show an intent to preempt city action. There is also no conflict between the language of the act and the ordinance. The act does not expressly authorize the sale or purchase of tobacco products to those ages 18-20. The ordinance is a constitutional exercise of the city's home rule power, and the district court is reversed.

STATUTE: Kansas Constitution, Article 12, §5(b), §5(d)

criminal 

attorney and client—criminal procedure—motions
state v. bacon
sedgwick district court—affirmed; court of appeals—affirmed
no. 114,951—june 28, 2019

FACTS: Bacon was charged with aggravated human trafficking. After appointed public defender continued the preliminary hearing seven times, Bacon filed pro se “Motion for Diligence” with copy of KRPC 1.3. No action taken on this and subsequent similar motions. Appointed counsel continued the preliminary hearing three more times, and continued trial three times. Bacon then retained private counsel. State amended the complaint and jury found Bacon guilty of commercial sexual exploitation of a child. Motion for new trial filed, based in part on district court’s failure to inquire into Bacon’s pro se motions voicing dissatisfaction with appointed counsel. Bacon appealed the district court’s denial of that motion. Court of appeals affirmed the conviction, finding in part the pro se motions did not allege dissatisfaction with appointed counsel. Review granted on this issue.

ISSUE: District court’s duty to Inquire 

HELD: It is assumed without deciding that Bacon’s pro se motions were sufficient to trigger the district court’s duty to inquire into a potential conflict with his trial attorney, but on facts in case, remand to district court is unnecessary because Bacon retained a new attorney for trial; he does not claim his trial attorney was ineffective; and he does not otherwise identify any prejudice flowing from district court’s failure to inquire.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5426(b)(4), -6422(a)(4)

criminal procedure—motions—sentences—statuites
state v. dubry
shawnee district court—affirmed
court of appeals—affirmed
no. 114,050—june 28, 2019

FACTS: Dubry was convicted of kidnapping. Years later he moved to correct his 2011 sentence, arguing the sentencing court improperly scored a prior Wyoming conviction as a person crime. District court denied the motion. Dubry appealed, arguing the Wyoming statute is broader than the counterpart Kansas offense. Court of appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Dubry’s petition for review granted, and parties were ordered to explain whether panel’s decision should be summarily vacated and case remanded to district court in light of State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (2018). Dubry argues Wetrich should apply.

ISSUE: Classification of out-of-state crime

HELD: Affirmed based on State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585 (2019)(Murdock II). Legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced. Thus a sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes. Since Wetrich announced a change in the law and Dubry was sentenced before Wetrich was decided, application of Wetrich to Dubry’s motion to correct his sentence is barred by Murdock II.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504; K.S.A. 20-3018(b), 21-3503, -4701 et seq., -4711, 60-2101

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—EVIDENCE—FIFTH AMENDMENT
FOURTH AMENDMENT—MOTIONS
STATE V. GUEIN
JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED
COURT OF APPEALS—AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
NO. 115,426—JUNE 28, 2019

FACTS: Police observed a suspected drug deal involving car parked in a closed Burger King lot. Officers approached the car, patted down occupants and retrieved a bag of marijuana Guein admitted was in his underwear. After arrest, Guein admitted to additional marijuana in the car. Search of the car disclosed handgun, loose marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. Guein filed a motion to suppress his statements and the evidence obtained as a result of search of his person and his car. District court: refused to suppress Guein’s statement of having marijuana in his underwear because Guein was not in custody until handcuffed; suppressed Guein’s statement of additional drugs in car, made after handcuffed and before Miranda warning; admitted post-Miranda statements, finding Guein had voluntarily waived his rights; and denied suppression of the physical evidence. Guein was convicted of felony distribution of marijuana and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. A divided court of appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s decision on the motion to suppress and remanded to district court. State v. Guein, 53 Kan. App.2d 394 (2017). Entire panel upheld the admission of Guein’s statement about marijuana in underwear and the marijuana found there, finding Miranda  warnings were not necessary. Majority concluded officer’s statements to Guein were sufficiently threatening to negate the Miranda warning, and State’s failure to provide the trial transcript prevented a harmless error analysis. Conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered. Guein and State both petitioned for review.

ISSUES: (1) Admission of pre-Miranda statement; (2) admission of post-Miranda statement

HELD: Factors cited in State v. Lewis, 299 Kan. 828 (2014), are examined on facts in case, finding officer’s pre-Miranda interrogation was custodial rather than investigative. District court’s denial of motion to suppress pre-Miranda statement about marijuana in underwear is reversed.

     Under facts in case, officer’s aggressive and profane language implied physical violence toward Guein, prompting Guein’s later incriminating statement. Panel’s majority on this issue is affirmed. Remanded to district court for further proceedings.

CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT (Stegall, J.)(joined by Biles, J.): Disagrees with majority’s order to suppress Guein’s pre-Miranda statements, and would support panel’s assessment that this was an ordinary investigatory detention not requiring Miranda warnings. Agrees that Guein’s post-Miranda statements were not voluntary and must be suppressed, but does not find officer’s use of profanity as significant as the majority does. Guein was coerced because of a real and actionable threat. Law enforcement’s use of the word “fuck” does not make the circumstances more or less coercive, and majority’s reasoning suggests a politely worded threat is less coercive than a vulgar one.  

STATUTUES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-460(f); K.S.A. 20-3018(b), 22-2402(1), -3215(4), -3216(2), 60-2101(b)

constitutional law—criminal law—criminal procedure—evidence
jury instructions—prosecutors—statutes`
state v. james
sedgwick district court—affirmed
no. 117,945—june 28, 2019

FACTS: James was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm. On appeal, he claimed district court erred by: refusing defense requests for instructions on lesser included offenses of reckless second-degree murder and reckless involuntary manslaughter; refusing to instruct jury on imperfect self-defense involuntary manslaughter; failing to instruct jury to consider verdicts of premeditated murder and imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter simultaneously;  and admitting gruesome autopsy photos. He also claimed prosecutorial error during closing argument, claimed he was deprived his constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of the trial—namely requests for continuances, and argued cumulative error required reversal.

ISSUES: (1) Jury instructions on reckless based homicides; (2) jury instruction on imperfect self-defense of involuntary manslaughter; (3) jury instruction on simultaneous consideration of lesser included crimes; (4) admission of autopsy photos; (5) prosecutorial error; (6) constitutional right to presence; (7) cumulative error

HELD: Challenge to district court’s refusal to instruct on lesser included reckless homicides was properly preserved, and the requested instructions were both legally and factually appropriate under facts in case. District judge’s refusal to instruct jury on reckless second-degree murder and reckless involuntary manslaughter was error, but not reversible error under the statutory harmless error standard.

     Likewise, James preserved his challenge to district court’s refusal to instruct on imperfect self-defense of involuntary manslaughter. This instruction was legally appropriate, and under facts in case, also factually appropriate. Applying statutory harmlessness test, district judge’s failure to give the requested instruction was not reversible error.

     Under controlling precedent in State v. Sims, 308 Kan. 1488 (2018), pet. for cert. filed April 29, 2019, a district court is not required to instruct a jury to consider a lesser included homicide offense simultaneously with any greater homicide offense.

      No abuse of district judge’s discretion by admitting autopsy photos which were not repetitious and which allowed pathologist to explain path of bullet that killed the victim and show skull fractures that resulted.

     Prosecutor erred by stating James left the scene in a stolen car because no evidence supported a description of the car as “stolen.” Also, referencing an uncharged crime is problematic because it encourages jurors to draw inference of a defendant’s propensity to commit crimes. In light of entire record, however, this error does not require reversal.

     Because record contains no evidence that James knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present when first attorney requested two continuances, error is assumed. Under constitutional standard the error was harmless under facts in this case. State v. Wright, 305 Kan. 1176 (2017), is distinguished.   

     The combination of instructional errors, prosecutorial error, and assumed violation of James’ right to be present at all critical stages did not deprive James of a fair trial.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5202(j), -5202(h), -5226, -5402(a)(1), -5403(a)(1), -5403(a)(2), -5801, -5803, 60-455(a); K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5405(a)(4); K.S.A. 22-3402

constitutional law—criminal procedure
evidence—sentencing—statutes
state v. obregon
geary district court—reversed, sentences vacated and remanded
court of appeals—affirmed in part and reversed in part
NO. 117,422—june 28, 2019

FACTS: Obregon entered no contest pleas to possession of drugs with intent to distribute.  District court accepted the pleas, and in sentencing, applied the statutory firearm enhancement. Obregon appealed, challenging whether district court should have classified a prior Florida battery conviction as a person felony without knowing which version of the Florida crime he committed. He also claimed his no contest pleas to the base drug offenses did not include any facts upon which the enhancement could be grounded. Court of appeals concluded the district court properly calculated Obregon’s criminal history score, but held Obregon’s waiver of his right to jury trial on the firearm enhancement was invalid. Panel vacated the enhancement and remanded case to district court for proper waiver or for jury to make factual findings required by K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6805(g)(1) regarding the firearm. Obregon’s petition for review granted.

ISSUES: (1) Florida battery conviction; (2) firearm enhancement

HELD: Pursuant to State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585 (2019)(Murdock II), Obregon is entitled to application of State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (2018), but variation to the Wetrich analysis is presented because the Kansas and out-of-state offenses are both what Kansas law refers to as “alternative means crimes.” When the crime in question is an out-of-state offense with alternative means—some of which would not be comparable to Kansas person crimes—the State bears the burden of establishing the defendant committed a version of the offense supporting the person classification. On record in this case, district court’s finding that Obregon committed a Florida offense with a comparable Kansas person crime is not supported by substantial competent evidence. Because the Florida offense on its face is broader than the Kansas comparator, it should not have been classified as a person offense under Wetrich. Sentence is vacated and case is remanded for district court to reconsider the Florida conviction’s person-crime classification.

     Panel erred by remanding his case for a jury to determine if firearm enhancement should apply. As a general rule, special questions may not be submitted to a jury for answer in a criminal prosecution, and the legislature has not created a statutory exception to the general rule against special verdicts for a firearm enhancement to be determined separately after the verdict. Obregon’s resentencing is to proceed without the firearm enhancement.

CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT (Johnson, J.): Agrees the district court must resentence Obregon without the enhancement. Also agrees the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support classification of the Florida battery conviction as a person felony, but that insufficiency of the evidence should result in vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing of criminal history score with the Florida conviction classified as nonperson.        

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5413(a), -5413(a)(1), -5413(a)(2), -5413(g), -6801 et seq., -6805(g)(1), -6805(g)(2), -6809, -6814, -6814(b), -6814(c); K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6805(g)(1), -6811(e); K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-6817(b)(2); K.S.A. 20-3018(b), 21-3715, -3715(a), 60-2101(b)

criminal procedure—mootness—motions—sentencing—statutes
state v. russ
sedgwick district court—affirmed;
court of appeals—affirmed
no. 115,111—june 28, 2019

FACTS: Russ was found guilty of attempted second-degree murder. His prior convictions included six Wichita municipal violations classified as person misdemeanors, five of which were eligible for conversion to a felony. Russ appealed sentencing court’s classification of prior municipal ordinance convictions as person offenses to calculate Russ’ criminal history score, arguing in part the domestic battery municipal ordinances were broader than the counterpart Kansas domestic battery statute. Court of appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Russ petitioned for review claiming the panel erred by: (1) looking beyond the most comparable Kansas offense of domestic battery to analyze his municipal ordinance domestic battery convictions, and (2) declining to address as moot an issue concerning his prior conviction of failure to comply with bond restrictions.

ISSUES: (1) Classifying the domestic battery municipal ordinance violations; (2) mootness

HELD: Applying State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (2018), the panel correctly held Russ’ domestic battery ordinance violations were person offenses. Only difference between the ordinances and the Kansas domestic battery statue is the specific requirement of the relationship between the batterer and the battered, which makes the scope of the ordinance’s proscribed acts narrower, not broader.  

     Panel correctly declined to address the classification of Russ’ prior conviction for failure to comply with bond restrictions. Regardless of classification of this prior conviction, Russ’ criminal history score is unchanged since three prior domestic battery municipal ordinance violations were properly scored as person misdemeanors.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5413(a), -5413(g)(1), -6801 et seq., -6810(a), -5811(a); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6811(e)(3); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6804(a), -6809, -6811(a); K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5414(a); K.S.A. 20-3018(a), 60-2101(b)

 

Kansas Court of Appeals

CIVIL

DISCOVERY
FLAHERTY V. CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA
SALINE DISTRICT COURT – AFFIRMED
NO. 119,704 – JUNE 28, 2019

FACTS: Flaherty purchased a sprayer manufactured by CNH in early 2014. Later that year, Flaherty took it back to the dealer for maintenance and a hose adjustment. The dealer knew that there were also potential issues with one of the drive hoses at the engine starter. While the sprayer was at the dealer, it caught on fire and was completely destroyed. During the investigation, a fire investigator with the fire department accompanied law enforcement on the scene. It was his opinion that the fire was caused by an electrical issue. Neither of Flaherty's experts could definitively determine the fire's cause. Robert Hawken, a product safety specialist at CNH, investigated the sprayer in anticipation of litigation. Flaherty sued both CNH and the dealer. During discovery, Flaherty provided notice of his intent to depose Hawken. CNH filed a motion to quash and asked the court to quash the subpoena. The district court granted that motion and Hawken was not deposed. After hearing more evidence, the district court granted CNH's motion for summary judgment on all claims and Flaherty appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Denial of discovery request; (2) express warranty claims; (3) implied warranty claims

HELD: Hawken examined the sprayer over a month after the fire, and he only gave his findings to CNH's legal department and outside counsel. The dealer told Flaherty that Hawken believed the fire started in the sprayer's starter area. Hawken's opinions were protected by work-product privilege as far as the subpoena duces tecum was concerned. Hawken was also protected by non-testifying expert privilege as an in-house expert. Flaherty failed to prove that Hawken waived his privilege, and much of the privilege belonged to CNH, and Hawken has no power to waive it on the company's behalf. The warranty agreement between Flaherty and CNH disclaimed any express warranty created by descriptions of the sprayer on its website or by statements made by salespeople. And Flaherty failed to identify any specific descriptions of the sprayer on which he relied. In addition, the warranty agreement required Flaherty to prove that the sprayer had a defect in material or workmanship, which he failed to do. Any implied warranty claim had a similar requirement that Flaherty prove the existence of a defect. In addition, Flaherty failed to prove that the sprayer was defective when it left CNH's control.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-226(b)(4)(A), -226(b)(5), -226(b)(5)(D), -233(b)(1)(B), -256(c)(2), -456; K.S.A. 60-437, 84-2-313(1)(b), -313(2), -314(1), -314(2)(c)

 

Tags:  8807  Attorney Discipline  Geary District  Johnson District  Saline District  Sedgwick District  Shawnee District  Weekly20190702 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

June 21, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, June 24, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

Criminal

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES
STATE V. DARRAH
MCPHERSON DISTRICT COURT - AFFIRMED
NO. 117,461—JUNE 21, 2019

FACTS: Darrah and two co-conspirators were implicated in the kidnapping and murder of an associate. He pled no contest and the parties made a sentencing recommendation. Before sentencing, Darrah asked the district court to impose concurrent rather than consecutive sentences, claiming that his culpability was less than his coconspirators' and that concurrent sentencing would make his sentence commensurate with his level of involvement in the crime. At sentencing, the State requested both the aggravated number for the kidnapping charge and that the sentence run consecutive to the murder sentence. Darrah asked for mitigated numbers with concurrent sentencing. The district court imposed a hard 25 for the murder charge and the aggravated sentence for kidnapping, to run consecutive to the murder sentence. Darrah appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Abuse of discretion with sentencing

HELD: The facts presented at trial show that Darrah was central to the conspiracy and acted as a leader in committing the crimes. A reasonable person could have concluded that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the harm and culpability associated with Darrah's actions. For these reasons, the sentence imposed by the district court was not an abuse of discretion.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6815(c)(2)(H), -6819(b)

 

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS
STATE V. DURAN
SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 119,303 AND 119,304—JUNE 21, 2019

FACTS: Guadalupe Duran was sentenced to probation in two cases. For each case, there was a lengthy underlying sentence. Duran stipulated to violating his probation. Both Court Services and the State asked the district court to impose Duran's underlying sentence. Instead of imposing a graduated, intermediate sanction the district court found that "public safety" would be negatively impacted by reinstatement, and it ordered Duran to serve his underlying sentences. Duran appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Failure to impose intermediate sanctions

HELD: A district court is given statutory authority to bypass intermediate sanctions only in limited circumstances. In order to make that bypass, the district court must establish with particularity the reasons for finding that public safety will be negatively affected or that the offender's welfare will not be served by the intermediate sanction. Those particularized findings must be more than a general finding that the offender is not amenable to probation. Here, the district court's findings were based on speculation and generalized predictions without connection to the particular facts of Duran's case. The district court abused its discretion by revoking probation without setting forth with particularity reasons which justified the refusal to impose an intermediate sanction.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1), -3716(c)(9)(A)

 

RACE-BASED POLICING
STATE V. GILL
RENO DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 119,986—JUNE 21, 2019

FACTS: Law enforcement went to an apartment complex to investigate a reported theft. There was no suspect description and the officer was not looking for anyone in particular. The officer spotted Gill and a passenger in an SUV; both men were African-American. When Gill attempted to leave, the officer told him that he was not free to go. Despite no evidence of wrongdoing, the officer asked for Gill's driver's license and proof of insurance. Eventually, officers searched Gill's vehicle and discovered evidence of drug activity. After he was charged, Gill moved to suppress the evidence from his vehicle, alleging that the officer unreasonably used race-based policing when initiating the encounter with Gill. The district court agreed and suppressed the evidence. The State appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Admissibility of evidence in light of race-based policing

HELD: This case does not involve normal Fourth Amendment inquiries; exclusion was granted because the district court found that law enforcement violated K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-4609. The district court correctly determined that approaching two African-American men because they are "staring hard at you" unreasonably used race when deciding to initiate an enforcement action. The contact between the officer and Gill was completely unrelated to the initial theft report. And the district court's finding that the officer could not have determined whether a marijuana smell was coming from Gill's vehicle is an unreviewable credibility determination. The district court correctly concluded that the officer unreasonably used race to initiate an enforcement action and, as a result, suppressed evidence found in Gill's vehicle.

DISSENT: (Powell, J.) Body camera video showed no evidence of racial animus. Absent that, the district court erred by suppressing the evidence.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-4604(d), -4606(d), -4609; K.S.A. 22-3216(1)

 

DUE PROCESS—PARENTAL RIGHTS
IN RE M.S.
SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 119,797—JUNE 21, 2019

FACTS: The State filed a child in need of care petition alleging that Mother's children were not being properly cared for in her home. The children were removed from her home and placed in DCF custody. Ultimately, the State sought to terminate Mother's parental rights. At the beginning of trial, Mother told the district court that she might need to leave early to help her mother home from a hospital. Mother finished the day but did not appear for the second day of trial. Mother told counsel that she was having transportation issues and intended to participate, but she failed to appear on either the second or third days of trial. The district court found her in "default", heard a proffer by the State, reviewed the evidence, and terminated Mother's parental rights. Mother appeals.

ISSUES: (1) Due process; (2) sufficiency of the evidence; (3) best interests of the children

HELD: Mother had a constitutionally protected, fundamental liberty interest in her relationship with her children. Mother was able to present her case-in-chief on the first day of trial. She had additional opportunities to be heard again on other days of the trial, but she chose not to attend. No evidence was presented on days that Mother was not present in court. The State had an interest in concluding the proceedings quickly so that the children had finality as soon as possible. The State had a justifiable interest in concluding the proceedings even in Mother's absence. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2269(b)(7) requires that reasonable – not effective – efforts be made towards rehabilitation. Efforts made towards rehabilitation were reasonable in this case. There was clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unfit and that that unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests.

CONCURRENCE: (Atcheson, J.) Mother chose not to appear at the last two days of her termination hearing. The State did not impede her ability to participate. Under these circumstances, Mother has no legal basis to complain about a denial of due process rights – she received all of the process she was due.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2246, -2267(a), -2269(a), -2269(b), -2269(b)(7) -2269(b)(8), -2269(c), -2269(g)(1), -2271

Criminal

UNLAWFUL SEXUAL RELATIONS
STATE V. JOHNSON
DOUGLAS DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 118,380—JUNE 21, 2019

FACTS: Johnson worked as a paraprofessional educator. K.E. was a student in the district and was ordered to attend school at the facility where Johnson worked. K.E. and Johnson started flirting outside of school through social media. The relationship progressed, and the two had sexual intercourse one time. K.E. eventually told his father about the relationship, and he contacted law enforcement. After being questioned, Johnson admitted her actions to law enforcement. A jury convicted Johnson of unlawful sexual relations, one count of sexual exploitation of a child, and one count of promoting obscenity to a minor. She appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Constitutionality of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5512(a)(9); (2) sufficiency of the evidence; (3) alternative means; (4) transmission of obscene material

HELD: K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5512(a)(9) prohibits consensual sexual activity when the offender is a teacher "or other person in a position of authority" employed at a school where the child is enrolled. The phrase "or other person in a position of authority" is not unconstitutionally vague; it has meaning that can be clearly understood through common understanding and practice. There was sufficient evidence to show that Johnson was in a position of authority at K.E.'s school, and he was a student enrolled at the facility. Sexual exploitation of a child is not an alternative means crime, so the State was not required to prove all of the listed means beyond a reasonable doubt. There was sufficient evidence to prove that Johnson promoted K.E.'s sexually explicit performance to arouse sexual desires. The photos and videos that Johnson sent to K.E. were "obscene material" as used in the statute. There is no requirement that the material be tangible, and digital photographs are allowable.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5510(a)(1), -5510(d), -5510(2)(B) -5512(a), -5512(a)(9), -5512(d)(9)

Tags:  8807  Douglas District  McPherson District  Reno District  Sedgwick District  Shawnee District  unlawful sexual relations 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

June 14, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administrator, Monday, June 17, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

Civil

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES—DAMAGES
HILBURN V. ENERPIPE LTD.
SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED
DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED, CASE REMANDED
NO. 112,765—JUNE 14, 2019

FACTS: Hilburn was injured when her car was rear-ended by a semi owned by Enerpipe Ltd. Hilburn sued, claiming that the driver's negligence caused the accident, and that Enerpipe was vicariously liable for the driver's actions. Enerpipe admitted to both of these facts, and a trial was held only on the issue of damages. A jury awarded Hilburn $335,000 which included $33,490.86 for medical expenses and $301,509.14 for noneconomic losses. Defense counsel prepared a verdict form with a total award of $283,490.86 which represented the jury's total award with the amount adjusted to reflect the $250,000 cap of K.S.A. 60-19a02(d). Hilburn objected, claiming the statutory cap was unconstitutional under sections 1, 5, and 18 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The district court affirmed the lesser award and Hilburn appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, believed itself to be bound by prior Supreme Court decisions. Hilburn's petition for review was granted.

ISSUES: (1) Issue preservation; (2) quid pro quo test for section 5 claims; (3) facts versus policy

HELD: The version of Supreme Court rule 8.03 in effect at the time Hilburn filed her petition for review allows the court to address a plain error not presented. The issue of whether the quid pro quo test applies to Hilburn's section 5 claim was properly preserved under the old rule because Hilburn preserved it in the district court and it was addressed by the court of appeals. Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights preserves the jury trial right as it historically existed at common law. This protection extends to a determination of noneconomic damages. K.S.A. 60-19a02 infringes on this constitutional right. In the past, this infringement has been excused by the two-part quid pro quo test applied through a section 18 analysis. However, continued application of the prior decision in Miller, relying on stare decisis, cannot withstand scrutiny. The section 5 right to jury trial is completely distinct from the section 18 right to remedy. A statutory cap substitutes the legislature's nonspecific judgment for a jury's specific judgment. This runs afoul of the constitution's grant of an "inviolate" right to a jury. The cap on damages imposed by K.S.A. 60-19a02 is facially unconstitutional because it violates section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.

CONCURRENCE: (Stegall, J.) Justice Stegall agrees that the quid pro quo test should be reversed in favor of an application of the plain and original public meaning of section 5. He first considers whether K.S.A. 60-19a02 even implicates section 5 and concludes that it does, since K.S.A. 60-19a02 is a procedural measure affecting who decides a particular question.

DISSENT: (Luckert, J. joined by Biles, J.) She would continue to apply stare decisis and follow Miller, analyzing this issue under the quid pro quo test. She believes Hilburn did not properly preserve this issue in her petition for review. And even if the issue is analyzed on the merits, she believes that mandatory motor carrier liability insurance provides an adequate substitute remedy for litigants.

STATUTES: Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights Sections 1, 5, and 18; K.S.A. 60-19a02, -19a02(d)

DUI—FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS—SEARCH AND SEIZURE
CASPER V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED
NO. 115,352—JUNE 14, 2019

FACTS: Casper's driving privileges were suspended after she was arrested and refused to take a blood alcohol test. An officer saw Casper make a wide turn. He followed her and did not notice any other indicators of impairment, but he still initiated a stop. The officer testified that Casper was initially cooperative but later claimed that she failed her field sobriety tests: a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, a walk-and-turn test, and a balance-on-one-foot test. After these failures, Casper was arrested. She refused to take a breathalyzer test. Based on her refusal to take a blood test, Casper's driving privileges were suspended. She appealed, but the decision was affirmed after the hearing officer found that law enforcement had reasonable grounds to believe that Casper was under the influence. The district court disagreed, holding that Casper showed that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for believing that she was driving under the influence. The Department of Revenue appealed and the court of appeals reversed the district court, finding that there were adequate grounds for the stop and arrest. Casper's petition for review was granted.

ISSUE: (1) Factual grounds for a stop

HELD: Casper's license could only be suspended if the initial arrest was lawful. And in order to have a lawful arrest, there must have been probable cause to justify the arrest. There was no evidence that Casper's breath bore a strong odor of alcohol. The district court correctly heard all of the testimony and reviewed the recordings. The evidence before the district court was substantial and competent and the court made reasonable inferences from that evidence. The court of appeals improperly discounted those findings and should have given more deference to the district court as fact-finder. The district court's reversal of the hearing officer was supported by substantial competent evidence and should be affirmed.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1002(a)(1), -1001(b)(1)(a), -1020(a), -1020(h)(1)(B)

SCHOOL FINANCE
GANNON V. STATE
SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—PROPOSED REMEDY
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES
NO. 113,267—JUNE 14, 2019

FACTS: In June 2018, the court acknowledged that almost all issues in the long-running school finance litigation had been resolved. The court found that the equity piece was satisfied, and although the adequacy piece was not yet met, the court recognized an "intent to comply." The mandate was stayed until the end of the fiscal year in order to give the State more time to make financial adjustments and reach constitutional compliance for adequacy. The legislature's proposed remedy was through passage of 2019 House Substitute for Senate Bill 16, which was passed and signed by the governor in April 2019. The bill attempts to cover inflation with additional funding, completing the safe harbor remediation plan. Senate Bill 16 now comes to the court for review.

ISSUE: (1) Compliance with safe harbor plan and accounting for inflation

HELD: The "safe harbor" plan involves the State returning to the basic funding plan approved in 2009-10, with adjustments made for inflation. These 2009-10 calculations included adjustments for virtual state aid. S.B. 16 accounts for inflation by increasing the specific base aid figure for each of the remaining four years of the remediation plan. S.B. 16 substantially complies with prior court decisions and adequately funds education. The court retains jurisdiction to ensure continued implementation of the scheduled funding.

STATUTES: Article 6, § 6(b) of the Kansas Constitution; K.S.A. 72-5132(a) 

Criminal

CRIMINAL HISTORY—JURISDICTION—SENTENCING
STATE V. WEBER
SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED
NO. 113,472—JUNE 14, 2019

FACTS: Weber pled guilty to attempted robbery. The plea agreement assumed that his criminal history score would be C. A presentence investigation report revealed two Michigan convictions which, if scored as person felonies, would increase his criminal history score to B. The district court imposed sentence using the B score. Weber did not directly appeal his conviction or sentence. Some years later, Weber filed a motion to correct illegal sentence based on the State v. Murdock holding; he argued that because Kansas statutes did not use the person/nonperson designations at the time of his conviction, his out-of-state convictions should be designated as nonperson felonies. The district court denied his motion and Weber appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, citing Keel and Murdock II and noting that the test was to look for comparable offenses. Weber's petition for review was granted.

ISSUES: (1) Letter of additional authority; (2) sentencing authority

HELD: The State could not use a Rule 6.09(b) letter as a substitute for a responsive brief. The statutory changes and case law updates occurred well before the State's briefing deadline would have passed. Wetrich was a change in the law. Under the law at the time of Weber's sentencing, offenses had to be comparable but not identical. Because Weber's Michigan offense was comparable to a Kansas offense, his sentence was not illegal.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6811(e), -6811(e)(3); 22-3504(3); K.S.A. 21-4711(e)

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

PATERNITY
STATE EX REL SECRETARY OF DCF V. MANSON
SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 119,134—JUNE 14, 2019

FACTS: Traig Manson executed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity (VAP) acknowledging that he was C.M.'s father. When Manson was asked to pay child support, he produced genetic testing results which allegedly showed that he was not C.M.'s biological father. He also claimed that he had no relationship with the child and that the child referred to another man as "Dad." The district court conducted a Ross hearing to determine whether official genetic testing was in two year old C.M.'s best interests. At the hearing, Manson explained that he allowed his name to go on C.M.'s birth certificate to help out the biological mother, but that he had never really had a true paternal relationship with C.M. In an effort to obtain support for C.M., DCF produced the VAP that Manson signed and noted that he did not rescind the signature within one year. The district court ruled that genetic testing was not in C.M.'s best interests and Manson appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Effect of VAP

HELD: Because Manson did not rescind his acknowledgement of paternity within one year, he remains C.M.'s father. Even if testing revealed that Manson was not C.M.'s father, he would still be required to pay child support because of the VAP. For that reason, the district court correctly refused to order genetic testing.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 23-2204, -2204(b)(1)

Tags:  8807  DUI  field sobriety tests  paternity  school finance  search and seizure  Sedgwick District  Shawnee District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

June 7, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, June 10, 2019
Updated: Friday, June 7, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

Attorney Discipline

INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
IN RE THOMAS CALEB BOONE
NO. 120,744—JUNE 7, 2019

FACTS: A hearing panel determined that Boone violated KRPC 1.1 (competence); 1.3 (diligence); 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). Boone also stipulated to a violation of 3.4(d) (failure to comply with a discovery request). The allegations arose after Boone twice failed to prosecute a civil action, missing multiple deadlines and failing to comply with district court orders. Boone appealed the dismissal of one action but the court of appeals affirmed the district court, finding that Boone's appellate brief failed to comply with court rules.

HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel found evidence to support the allegations made in the complaint. When considering discipline, the panel noted Boone's prior history of discipline, the pattern of misconduct, and the number of rule violations. In mitigation, the panel acknowledged the illness and death of Boone's father and Boone's genuine remorse for his actions. The disciplinary administrator recommended that Boone's license be indefinitely suspended. Boone asked that he be placed on probation, but because some of his conduct involved dishonesty, the panel determined that probation was not appropriate. The hearing panel agreed with the disciplinary administrator that indefinite suspension was the appropriate discipline.

HELD: There were no exceptions filed to the hearing panel's report, so it was deemed admitted. The court denied Boone's request for probation, finding that the misconduct was not amenable to probation. The court adopted the recommendation of the hearing panel and ordered that Boone's license be indefinitely suspended.

ORDER OF DISBARMENT
IN RE MATTHEW EDGAR HULT
NO. 24,854—JUNE 6, 2019

FACTS: Hult's law license was indefinitely suspended in February 2018. Since that time, four additional complaints have been filed alleging additional violations of the KRPC. In a letter, Hult voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas.

HELD: The court accepts the surrender of Hult's license, and he is disbarred.

Civil

CONSERVATORSHIP—FACTFINDING—GUARDIANSHIP
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF B.H.
WILSON DISTRICT COURT—COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED
CASE REMANDED
NO. 118,188—JUNE 7, 2019

FACTS: Biological mother and father relinquished custody of their children to relatives through a legal guardianship. Once that placement was made, the state terminated child- in-need-of-care proceedings that were pending against the parents. Both parents spent time in prison, neither paid the child support that was ordered, and father left the state after he completed his prison term. After some time passed, mother and father sought to terminate the guardianship, citing a constitutional right to parent. After hearing evidence, the district court denied the motion, citing clear and convincing evidence that the guardianship was in the children's best interests. The parents appealed and the court of appeals reversed, finding that the district court erred by considering the best interests of the children. That court believed that the district court should have applied the parental preference doctrine because there had never been a finding of parental unfitness. The guardians' petition for review was granted.

ISSUE: (1) Termination of guardianship

HELD: The purposes of the Code for Care of Children were circumvented by the shift from a CINC proceeding to a guardianship action. Normally, voluntary guardianships are voluntary and may be terminated at any time for any reason. Under ordinary circumstances, parental preference rights would require termination of the guardianship. In this case, though, the voluntary guardianship stopped a final CINC determination and put the CINC action in limbo. There have never been parental fitness findings made in this case, and it is unclear whether the district court attempted to make those findings when refusing to terminate the guardianship. Because the record is unclear, this case is remanded to the district court for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. If extraordinary circumstances exist to justify the continuation of the guardianship, those findings must be clearly made.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2201(a), -2203(a), -2203(c), -2255, -2255(e), -2255(f), -2264, -2272, -2272(a)(1), -2272(b), -2272(h); K.S.A. 59-3091, -3091(h)

ADVERSE POSSESSION—MINERAL RIGHTS
OXY USA V. RED WING OIL
HASKELL DISTRICT COURT—COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED
DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED—CASE REMANDED
NO. 111,973—JUNE 7, 2019

FACTS: Oxy USA, Inc. developed a productive oil and gas well on a unitized production unit of land. The unitized area included a quarter section of land which is the subject of this dispute. The well is not located on the property in question, but the owner of the minerals under that property can receive royalties from the production under the unitization agreement. However, Oxy was unable to determine which party owned a disputed one-half interest in the minerals under the property. To resolve that question, Oxy filed this interpleader and quiet title action to determine the rightful owner of the minerals under the property. Alice La Velle King owns the surface rights and an undisputed half interest in the minerals rights, and she claims the other half interest also belongs to her. Opposing her are 41 different people or groups all claiming ownership. The district court granted summary judgment to the other property owners, finding that King's claim to the royalties was barred by the statute of limitations. The court of appeals reversed on adverse possession grounds. The petition for review was granted.

ISSUE: (1) Can the surface owner of land enforce a reversionary interest in minerals at a later date, or is she barred by the statute of limitations or adverse possession

HELD: The misappropriation of royalties, standing alone, does not establish adverse possession of a mineral interest. It doesn't matter whether King knew about royalty payments being made to the other landowners. The surface owner is the legal owner of the minerals located underground. Title to the mineral rights quiets in her favor.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 60-503, -507 

criminal 

constitutional law—fourth amendment—MOTIONS—search and seizure
state v. andrade-reyes
johnson district court—reversed and remanded;
court of appeals—reversed
no. 115,044—june 7, 2019

FACTS: Two officers approached both sides of a car lawfully parked in dark area of an apartment complex lot, shined flashlights on the 2 individuals in the front seat, and repeatedly asked passenger (Andrade-Reyes) to open his hands. Once he did, the baggie dropped and retrieved tested positive for cocaine. Andrade-Reyes charged with possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. He filed motion to suppress evidence obtained through an unlawful seizure. District court denied the motion, finding the encounter was voluntary, or in the alternative, the detention was justified for officer safety.

ISSUE: (1) Unlawful seizure

HELD: Andrade-Reyes was unlawfully seized. The encounter was not voluntary. Under totality of the circumstances a reasonable person would not have felt free to terminate the encounter. And prior to Andrade-Reyes dropping the white substance, the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him. Officer safety concerns alone do not justify an investigatory detention. State v. Reiss, 299 Kan. 291 (2014), is distinguished. All evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful seizure must be suppressed. Reversed and remanded.

DISSENT (Luckert, J.): Agrees with majority’s synthesis of the applicable law, but disagrees with its application of the law to facts in this case. Would hold that once officers initiated the encounter, a reasonably prudent officer would have been warranted in believing, because of specific and articulable facts, that Andrade-Reyes was armed and posed an immediate danger. Because of this belief, it was reasonable for officers to demand that he open his hand. This limited intrusion was reasonable and appropriate for officer safety purposes.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 20-3018(b), 22-2402

constitutional law—criminal law—criminal procedure—
Fourth Amendment—jury instructions—motions—Sixth Amendment—Statutes
state v. Barrett
riley district court—affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
court of appeals—affirmed in part and reversed in part
no. 113,767—june 7, 2019

FACTS: Barrett convicted of reckless second degree murder and sentenced for the killing of an exterminator who had entered Barrett’s apartment to kill bugs. Trial delayed over six years until Barrett was competent to stand trial. Key question for jury was whether Barrett’s mental condition prevented him from forming a culpable mental state. On appeal, he claimed reversible error in district court’s failure to deny a requested instruction on imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter. In unpublished opinion, Court of Appeals affirmed, finding instructional error but the error was harmless under the “skip rule.”  Panel also rejected Barrett’s claim that his mental illness made his post-Miranda statements involuntary under Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (1960), and claim that State’s failure to force him to take his antipsychotic medication for four years violated the Kansas speedy trial statute. Review granted on all claims.

ISSUES: (1) Jury instructions - skip rule; (2) motion to suppress; (3) speedy trial

HELD: District court committed reversible error when it failed to give an imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter instruction. “Skip rule” is revisited, clarified, and corrected. The “skip rule” is a logical deduction that may support a finding of harmless error when it reasonably applies, but it does not replace longstanding harmlessness tests. Instead, the logical deduction inherent in the skip rule is one factor, among many, to be considered as part of the applicable harmlessness test. In this case, failure to give the imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter instruction was reversible error because jury could have reasonably convicted Barrett of voluntary manslaughter. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Blackburn is distinguished. Colorado v. Connelly, 379 U.S. 157 (1986), is controlling, holding that coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding a confession is not voluntary within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. District court found no evidence of coercive police activity in this case, and correctly dismissed Barrett’s motion to dismiss.

Denial of Barrett’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds is affirmed. Sixth Amendment did not require State to force-medicate Barrett with potentially life-threatening medication to maintain his competency to stand trial.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 21-3403(b), 22-3220, 60-261

criminal law—sentences—statutes
state v. newton
saline district court—affirmed
court of appeals—affirmed
no. 116,098—june 7, 2019

FACTS: Newton was convicted of attempted rape. Years later, he filed motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the district court incorrectly calculated his criminal history score by classifying pre-1993 convictions as person felonies contrary to State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 (2014)(Murdock I), overruled by State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 (2015). District court denied the motion, concluding Murdock I did not apply retroactively. Newton appealed. While appeal was pending, Keel overruled Murdock I. Court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, applying State v. Vandervort, 276 Kan. 164 (2003), to find district court properly scored Newton’s California conviction as a person felony. Review granted of Newton’s criminal history challenge, and parties were directed to address State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (2018).

ISSUE: (1) Criminal history calculation

HELD: Resolution of this appeal does not resolve parties’ arguments regarding Wetrich. Instead, following State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585 (2019)(Murdock II), Newton’s 1977 California robbery conviction was properly classified as a person felony under Kansas caselaw in 2008 when his sentence in the Kansas case became final.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504, -3504(3); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6811(e)(3); K.S.A. 20-3018(b), 21-4710 et seq., -4711(e), 60-2101(b)

constitutional law—fifth amendment—motions—venue
state v. palacio
saline district court—affirmed
NO. 116,899—june 7, 2019

FACTS: Palacio fired shots into a truck, killing the passenger. Palacio filed motion for change of venue, arguing significant pretrial publicity made it impossible to receive an impartial jury. District court denied the motion. Palacio also filed motion to suppress his confession because officers continued to interrogate him after he asked for a lawyer, or alternatively, the officers used coercive tactics. District court suppressed statements Palacio made in-between time he asked for a lawyer and the time he told officers he wanted to say something. Jury convicted Palacio of first-degree murder under theories of premeditation and felony murder, attempted first-degree murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery. On appeal he claimed the district court’s refusal to change venue violated K.S.A. 22-2616. He also claimed the officers violated his Fifth Amendment rights, or alternatively, his confession was involuntary.

ISSUES: (1) Change of venue statute; (2) motion to suppress confession

HELD: District court’s weighing of factors in K.S.A. 22-2616 is reviewed and upheld, including the slight favor of prejudice attributed to the severity of Palacio’s crimes that included a homicide. Same factor compared to weight of prejudice in cases involving more severe crimes of capital murder and rape.

Kansas Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether explicit questioning is always interrogation, but cases have indicated it is not. Court now confirms that an officer’s words or actions, including explicit questions, is interrogation only if the officer should have known that the questioning was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. In this case, the officers’ comments and questions were not interrogation and did not violate Fifth Amendment. Palacio thus was free to waive his previously invoked right, and knowingly and intelligently did so. Under facts in this case, district court did not err in finding the officers did not threaten, coerce, or engage in deceptive practices, and in concluding Palacio’s confession was voluntary.

CONCURRENCE (Johnson, J.): Concurs in the result.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 22-2616, -2616(1)

appeals—criminal law—evidence
state v. rucker
wyandotte district court—affirmed
NO. 117,143—june 7, 2019

FACTS: Rucker was convicted of first-degree felony murder. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that conviction. He also claimed the district court erred in admitting gruesome photographs of the victim that had no probative value on issues in dispute at trial, and that only inflamed passions of the jury.

ISSUES: (1) Sufficiency of the evidence; (2) admission of photographs

HELD: State alleged the victim was killed while Rucker was “in the commission of” or “attempt to commit” one or more of four inherently dangerous felonies: robbery, rape, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. Rucker’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting this alternative means crime fails because the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the state supports a jury finding that Rucker committed the four underlying felonies.

At trial, Rucker did not object to the admission of any of the photographs, and stipulated to their admission. Rucker did not preserve this issue for appeal, and merits of his argument are not reached.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 21-3401(b), -3426, -3436(a)(2), (3), (5), (10), -3716 (Furse)

 

Kansas Court of Appeals

 criminal

criminal law—statutes
state v. glover
sumner district court—affirmed
NO. 120,098—june 7, 2019

FACTS: Glover entered unlocked church and entered locked sacristy where he stole items from a locked cabinet. State charged him with burglary. District court dismissed the charge, reasoning the State did not prove Glover entered the building without authorization because church was open to the public. State appealed, arguing the sacristy can be considered a building or structure under the Kansas burglary statute.

ISSUE: (1) Kansas burglary statute—building or structure

HELD: A locked sacristy inside an unlocked church is not a building or structure as the terms are used in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5807(a). Published and unpublished opinions in Court of Appeals are reviewed as seeming to read into the burglary statute a definition of building or structure that hinges, in part, on whether an individual or entity is renting or leasing a space within the main building. But under plain language of the statute which the Legislature has not modified for 19 years, the sacristy was nothing more than a room within the church building. District court’s dismissal of the burglary charge is affirmed.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5807(a)(2)

Tags:  8807  Attorney Discipline  Haskell District  Johnson District  Riley District  Saline District  Sumner District  Wilson District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

May 31, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, June 3, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

Attorney Discipline

ORDER OF DISBARMENT
IN THE MATTER OF PAMELA J. THOMPSON
NO. 120,818—MAY 31, 2019

FACTS: A hearing panel found that Thompson violated KRPC 1.15 (safekeeping property); 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The allegations arose after Thompson hired Qualified Plan Solutions to provide administrative services for 401(k) retirement accounts for Thompson and her employees. Thompson was the plan's administrator and trustee. Beginning in January 2016, Thompson withheld funds from her paychecks and her employees' paychecks. But except on one occasion, she did not deposit the funds as required by the plan. It was not until February 2017 that Thompson's employees noticed that their 401(k) accounts were underfunded. Thompson worked with QPS to get the accounts current, including both salary deferrals and earned interest. It was alleged that Thompson got the money to make these deposits by converting money from estate cases without being given approval by the court.  

HEARING PANEL: Thompson stipulated to the violations. The hearing panel noted several aggravating factors, including a dishonest or selfish motive and a pattern of misconduct. The misconduct was somewhat mitigated by Thompson's personal and emotional problems, but the panel did not believe that Thompson's stress and anxiety excused the misconduct. The disciplinary administrator recommended that Thompson be disbarred. Thompson asked that discipline be limited to a one-year suspension. A majority of the hearing panel recommended that Thompson be indefinitely suspended.

HELD: Thompson did not file exceptions to the report and the findings were deemed admitted. After considering the facts, the court agreed with the disciplinary administrator and ordered disbarment. The court found that Thompson's misconduct was too serious to justify a lesser sanction.

criminal 

appeals—criminal procedure—motions
state v. douglas
reno district court—reversed and remanded
court of appeals—affirmed
no. 119,170—may 31, 2019

FACTS: During traffic stop, officer observed a capsule sticking out of Douglas’ pants pocket. Capsule then dropped while Douglas exited the car. Capsule was retrieved and tested positive for methamphetamine. Douglas filed motion to suppress, arguing violation of constitutional rights. District court agreed, stating no description of the capsule was provided to the court, thus no basis to find the detention was based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion. State appealed, citing officer’s testimony about the capsule. Court of appeals reversed and remanded with directions to deny the motion to suppress. Dissenting judge agreed to the reversal, but would remand for district judge to reevaluate findings based on evidence the officer in fact described the capsule observed in Douglas’ pocket. Douglas’ petition for review granted.

ISSUE: (1) Ruling on motion to suppress—reversal and remand

HELD: When a district court judge’s ruling in favor of defense motion to suppress is infected with an obviously incorrect assessment of State’s evidence that is equivalent to an arbitrary disregard of a portion of that evidence, an appellate court cannot be certain if the district judge, once the error was pointed out, would arrive at the same or a different conclusion. In such circumstances, wisest course for appellate court is to reverse and give district judge another chance to review the record. Panel majority’s reversal and remand with directions to draw an opposite conclusion of law short-circuits that chance. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Panel’s decision is affirmed but its instructions to the district court are modified.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 22-3216(2)

appeals—criminal procedure—restitution—sentences
state v. johnson
montgomery district court—affirmed in part—vacated in part
no. 117,788—may 31, 2019

FACTS: Johnson entered a no contest plea to charges of felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of firearm. Sentencing included: inconsistent references as to whether the life sentence for felony murder included possibility of parole after 25 years or required lifetime postrelease supervision; ambiguity about what sentences were to run concurrent or consecutive; and journal entry stating that restitution was “to be determined (TBD).” Johnson appealed on sentencing claims.

ISSUES: (1) Lack of preservation of consecutive sentencing issue; (2) jurisdiction to impose restitution; (3) illegal sentence aspects requiring correction without remand

HELD: Merits of Johnson’s claim—that district court relied on facts outside the record in sentencing consecutive terms on felony murder and aggravated kidnapping convictions—is not considered. Johnson failed to raise this issue in district court, and does not explain why issue should be considered for first time on appeal.

District court’s failure to follow procedure mandated in State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978 (2014), and State v. Charles, 298 Kan. 993 (2014), deprived district court of jurisdiction to set restitution later. That portion of journal entry and subsequent nunc pro tunc order indicating restitution remains “TBD” is vacated.

State concedes that judge’s inconsistent statements about parole eligibility after 25 years, not lifetime postrelease supervision, made this aspect of Johnson’s sentence illegal. The lifetime postrelease supervision term imposed at sentencing is vacated. Also, on face of record that clearly shows judge’s intention, no further action is required to correct the criminal possession sentence to make it concurrent with the other three sentences.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6620(b)(1), -6820(i), 22-3504(1), -3504(3), -3717(b)(2)

criminal procedure—jurisdiction—motions—sentences—statutes
state v. smith
sedgwick district court—affirmed
court of appeals—affirmed
No. 113,828—may 31, 2019

FACTS: Smith was convicted in 1984 on a guilty plea to charges of burglary and theft. Jail credit not addressed at sentencing or in final journal entry. No appeal from subsequent revocation of probation in the 1984 case. Smith filed 2014 motion for jail credit for time spent in county jail and residential facility. District court denied the motion, finding any jail credit issue had been waived. Smith appealed, arguing broad interpretation of his pro se motion as one filed under K.S.A. 60-1507, or under K.S.A. 22-3504 citing State v. Guzman, 279 Kan. 812 (2005). Court of appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Smith petitioned for review, seeking resolution of conflict in court of appeals’ opinions regarding district court’s jurisdiction to review post-conviction jail credit motions.

ISSUES: (1) Jurisdiction; (2) clerical error

HELD: Smith’s failure to raise issue of jail credit on direct appeal does not foreclose a motion under the nun pro tunc provision in K.S.A. 22-3504(2) to review clerical errors in judgments. The words “at any time” in that subsection means Kansas courts, with some exception, have jurisdiction to determine whether a clerical error occurred even after the time for an appeal has passed. Contrary holdings are disapproved in unpublished panel opinions in this case, State v. Muldrow (No. 107291), State v. Blazier (No. 110070), State v. Olson (No. 102226),  State v. Burnett (No. 112681), State v. Brown (No. 111052), State v. Arculeo (No. 110974), State v. Lakin (No. 111060), State v. Walker (No. 109309), and any other court of appeals decision holding that a criminal defendant cannot move for correction of jail credit if the defendant failed to raise the issue in a direct appeal.

Summary dismissal of Smith’s motion was warranted. Smith requested 18 months of jail credit, but identified no clerical error. Instead, Smith makes conclusory statements, presents no evidentiary support and provides nothing in the record warranting relief.

CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT (Luckert, J.): Agrees that Smith’s failure to raise issue of jail credit on direct appeal did not result in waiver of the issue if relief is sought under K.S.A. 22-3504(2). Disagrees with majority’s conclusion that district court can be affirmed because Smith failed to allege a jurisdictional basis for his motion. Reasons cited for why the merits of Smith’s motion cannot be evaluated at this time, including whether standard for “clerical error” stated in State v. Storer, 53 Kan.App.2d 1 (2016), should be adopted. Would remand to allow parties to develop their procedural, factual and legal arguments about whether a clerical error occurred.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Sup. 21-6615, 22-3504(1), -3504(2), -3717(d)(1), -3717(q); K.S.A. 21-4614, 22-3504(1), -3504(2), 22-3722, 60-1507

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES—UNEMPLOYMENT
LUCKETT V. KANSAS EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BOARD OF REVIEW
GEARY DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 119,717—MAY 31, 2019

FACTS: After losing her job, Luckett filed for weekly unemployment insurance benefit claims with the Kansas Department of Labor. Although some of her claims were denied, Luckett was awarded unemployment benefits for a certain period of time. In a letter dated more than 60 days after the last decision was rendered, Luckett sought payment of the benefits that were awarded as well as reconsideration of another decision. The referee who received Luckett's letter construed it as a motion to reconsider and denied it on grounds that it was untimely and failed to establish excusable neglect for a late appeal from a denial. The referee did not address Luckett's claim that she had not yet been paid the benefits that were awarded to her. Luckett again sent a letter clarifying that she wanted to be paid the benefits that she was awarded. Luckett filed a petition for judicial review. The district court ultimately granted KDOL's motion to dismiss, finding that Luckett's appeals were untimely. She appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Correct standard; (2) finding of excusable neglect; (3) motion to amend

HELD: Luckett's appeal was based on the KJRA. For that reason, a summary judgment standard is inappropriate. It is undisputed that Luckett's November 2017 letter was filed beyond the 16-day time limit established by statute. But that letter was not an appeal of an adverse decision. And the examiner's original decision allowed for reconsideration within one year assuming that Luckett provided some necessary information. That was what Luckett was attempting to do. The KDOL erred by construing Luckett's letter as an appeal. Luckett's filings were not untimely, and she was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before receiving relief. Luckett had claims consistent with a mandamus action. It was error to dismiss Luckett's petition for review without considering her motion to amend.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 44-703(d), -709(b)(2), -709(b)(3), -709(i), 60-215(a)(2), 77-603(a), -621(a)(1), -621(c)(4), -621(c)(7), -621(d); K.S.A. 60-

Criminal

criminal procedure—motions—sentences
state v. gonzalez
sedgwick district court—affirmed
no. 119,311—may 31, 2019

FACTS: Gonzalez pleaded guilty to criminal charges in 2012 and was granted probation. In 2013, he violated probation and served an 8-month prison sentence. In 2016, he was ordered to be deported. He filed a 2017 motion to withdraw his plea, arguing his attorney had not explicitly discussed deportation. He then amended his motion to claim excusable neglect for his untimely motion, citing his belief at the time of his plea that he was a lawful permanent resident non-citizen entitled to same protections as a United States citizen. District court denied the motion, finding Gonzalez failed to show excusable neglect.

ISSUE: (1) Post-sentence motion to withdraw plea

HELD: In this case, the acknowledgment of rights and entry of plea form that Gonzalez received during his plea hearing, reviewed with his attorney, understood and signed satisfied the requirements in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), as its language clearly identified deportation as a likely outcome instead of a mere abstract possibility.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3210(d)(2), -3210(e)(1)(A), -3210(e)(2), -3608(c)

Tags:  8806  Attorney Discipline  Geary District  Montgomery District  Reno District  Sedgwick District  Weekly20190604 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Page 3 of 14
1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  >   >>   >|