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

 

Search all posts for:   

 

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

December 14, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, December 17, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

Attorney Discipline

6-MONTH SUSPENSION
IN THE MATTER OF LARA M. OWENS
NO. 118,693—DECEMBER 14, 2018

FACTS: A hearing panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys found that Owens violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) (communication), 1.15(b) (safekeeping property), 1.16(d) (termination of representation), 8.1(b) (failure to respond to a demand from a disciplinary authority), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and Rule 207(b) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). The complaint arose after clients alleged that Owens failed to inform them of the relevant statute of limitations, failed to timely file lawsuits, and failed to communicate about case status. Owens failed to respond to an initial letter from the investigator and also ignored the follow-up email.

HEARING PANEL: Owens and the disciplinary administrator stipulated to some facts, including Owens' failure to provide her clients with timely updates on the status of their actions and her failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process. Owens was on diversion when some of the alleged misconduct occurred. She was also being treated for anxiety issues. The disciplinary administrator initially agreed to a two-year probation term with an underlying two-year suspension. But Owens failed to perform all of the required steps to put a plan in place, and both the disciplinary administrator and the hearing panel instead recommended a six-month suspension of Owens' license.

HELD: Clear and convincing evidence supports the hearing panel's findings regarding Owens' rule violations. Owens failed to comply with Rule 211(g), which establishes the tasks an attorney must undertake in order to be placed on probation. For that reason, probation is not an appropriate sanction. Based on the nature and duration of Owens' misconduct, a majority of the court imposed a six-month suspension of Owens' license. A minority of the court would have imposed a shorter suspension. Owens must undergo a Rule 219 hearing before her license can be reinstated.

criminal

appeals—constitutional law—evidence—motions—
prosecutors—sentences—statutes
state v. wilson
reno district court—reversed on issue subject to review and remanded
court of appeals—affirmed on issue subject to review
No. 114,567—december 14, 2018

FACTS: Wilson was convicted in 2007. State filed 2015 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing it was error not to impose lifetime post release supervision. Citing State v. Freeman 223 Kan. 362 (1978), Wilson claimed lifetime supervision was cruel and unusual punishment. District court granted the state’s motion. Wilson appealed, claiming in part he was denied a fair sentencing hearing when prosecutor misstated facts of Wilson’s case and mischaracterized facts in an unpublished opinion Wilson cited in support of his Freeman claim. A divided court of appeals panel affirmed in an unpublished opinion, finding appellate review was appropriate of claim of prosecutorial error in the context of a hearing on a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and applying test in effect prior to State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 (2016).  State’s petition for review was granted. State claimed the prosecutorial error challenge was not preserved for appeal because Wilson did not object to the alleged misstatements during the sentencing hearing.

ISSUES: (1) Preservation of the appeal, (2) prosecutorial error

HELD: Because the state’s petition for review advances only a merit-based challenge to the prosecutorial error question, it waived review of panel majority’s conclusion on preservation.

Prosecutorial error may occur during a sentencing proceeding before a judge. The two-step analytical framework in Sherman applies in both the guilt and penalty phases of any trial —whether before a jury or judge. Applying the Sherman test, there was reversible error at Wilson’s sentencing hearing. Prosecutor’s factual misstatements about Wilson’s underlying crime fell outside the wide latitude afforded when arguing state’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the state failed to show there was no reasonable possibility this prosecutorial error contributed to the district court’s decision. State concedes the prosecutor misstated facts in the unpublished case Wilson cited, but no further need in this case to explore alleged error in a prosecutor’s discussion of caselaw. The case is remanded to district court to consider again the question under Freeman—whether imposing lifetime post release supervision on Wilson would be grossly disproportionate to his offense.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 20-3018(b), 21-3501(1), 60-261, -2101(b)

Kansas Court of Appeals

criminal

appeals—constitutional law—criminal procedure—
juveniles—sentences—statutes
state v. robinson
johnson district court—affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
No. 117,957—december 14, 2018

FACTS: Robinson was convicted of aggravated robbery and kidnapping. His case was initially filed as a juvenile offender proceeding, and then moved to adult court where charges were amended to add kidnapping. On appeal, Robinson claimed he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. He also claimed the state could not add charges once the case moved from juvenile to adult court, and claimed the state’s service of the arrest warrant was so late that the statute of limitations had expired.

ISSUES: (1) Speedy trial—juvenile proceedings, (2) amended charges, (3) statute of limitations

HELD: Speedy-trial rights apply to juvenile-offender proceedings. On facts in this case, Robinson did not lose his constitutional right to a speedy trial by his delayed filing of his motion to dismiss. Delay from the time the state brought formal charges in the juvenile court until Robinson’s trial in an adult proceeding must be analyzed under factors in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). Case is remanded to district court to make the required factual findings under those factors.

When a criminal charge first made in juvenile proceedings is refiled as an adult proceeding, the state is not precluded from amending the charge. No departure from rule in State v. Randolph, 19 Kan.App.2d 730 (1994). Here, Robinson made no showing that adding the kidnapping charges substantially prejudiced his ability to defend himself at trial.

Statute-of-limitation defenses are waived if not timely raised. Even assuming Robinson could have raised the statute-of-limitation defense after the case had moved to adult proceedings, his failure to do so waived the defense. On remand, the district court may consider the state’s delay in serving the warrant, its cause, and any resulting prejudice when weighing the Barker factors to decide Robinson’s speedy-trial claim. 

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3208(4), 38-2303(d), -2303(g), -2347, -2347(b)(1), -2347(d)(1)-(3); K.S.A. 22-3201(e)

Tags:  Attorney Discipline  Johnson District  juveniles  Reno District  suspension  Weekly20181218 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

November 30, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, December 3, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

Attorney Discipline

ORDER OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION
IN RE DAVID P. CRANDALL
NO. 117,910—NOVEMBER 30, 2018

FACTS: A hearing panel of the Board of Discipline of Attorneys found that Crandall violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(b) (communication), 1.5(a) (fees), 1.7(a) (concurrent conflict of interest), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). An inquiry into Crandall's conduct began when a client wrote the Disciplinary Administrator questioning the reasonableness of Crandall's fees. Around the same time, a district court judge reported Crandall after most of the fees that he requested in a probate matter were rejected. An inquiry into Crandall's fees showed that he was either inexperienced or was doing work in an attempt to justify fees which were substantially higher than those charged by other attorneys in the area.

FACTUAL FINDINGS: Crandall challenged many of the findings made by the hearing panel. The Kansas rules of attorney discipline give the court disciplinary jurisdiction over Kansas-licensed attorneys even if the behavior occurs outside of Kansas. Crandall's failure to follow Supreme Court Rule 6.02 and the Rules of Evidence, which apply in attorney discipline proceedings, means his constitutional and evidentiary issues were not preserved for appeal. There was clear and convincing evidence that Crandall's fees were excessive given the amount of time and labor expended. In representing another client, Crandall's personal interest in having his fee paid conflicted with his duty to advise his client. And he charged an unreasonable fee when the value of the estate decreased significantly while the probate case was pending.

HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel noted Crandall's multiple rule violations, which it attributed to a selfish motive. The panel also noted Crandall's "angry and condescending" tone that was used through disciplinary proceedings. A majority of the hearing panel recommended a 6-month suspension. A minority would recommend a 1-year suspension.

HELD: A majority of the court agreed with the hearing panel and imposed discipline of a 6-month suspension. A minority of the court would have imposed a lesser sanction.

Attorney Discipline

ORDER OF INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
IN RE BRANDON W. DEINES
NO. 119,111—NOVEMBER 30, 2018

FACTS: The Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal complaint against Deines in 2017. He did not file an answer and was temporarily suspended in September 2017. A hearing panel determined that Denies violated KRPC 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (diligence), 1.4(a) (communication), 1.15(b) (safekeeping property), 1.16(d) (termination of representation), 3.2 (expediting litigation), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 8.1 (b) (failure to respond to a disciplinary authority), and Rules 207(b) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation) and 211(b) (failure to file an answer in a disciplinary proceeding). A complaint was filed after multiple instances where Deines failed to act on behalf of his clients, resulting in dismissed cases and harm to his clients.

HEARING PANEL: The temporary suspension was sought because Denies' inaction caused significant harm to his clients. In addition, Deines' failure to participate in the disciplinary process made it difficult to investigate. The panel acknowledged that Deines' behavior was a result of his depression. The Disciplinary Administrator asked for an indefinite suspension. Because Deines' behavior was caused by his depression the hearing panel recommended a 2-year suspension.

HELD: Denies failed to respond to the hearing panel's report and failed to attend the formal hearing on the complaint. The court considered this absence an additional aggravating factor. For that reason, the court imposed an indefinite suspension rather than the 2-year suspension recommended by the hearing panel.

Criminal

constitutional law–criminal procedure–sentences–statutes
state v. Hayes
johnson district court—affirmed
No. 117,341—november 30, 2018

FACTS:  Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Hayes’ conviction of premeditated first-degree murder for a 2010 shooting death, but vacated the hard 50 sentence as unconstitutional and remanded for resentencing. State v. Hayes, 299 Kan. 861 (2014). On remand, district court applied 2013 amended legislation now codified at K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6620, to again impose an enhanced hard 50 sentence. Hayes appealed, claiming retroactive application of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6620 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. 

ISSUE: Retroactive Application of 2013 Amendments to K.S.A. 21-6620

HELD: Because the 2013 amendments to the sentencing provisions of K.S.A. 21-6620 are procedural in nature and do not change the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date, the retroactive application of those sentencing procedures do not violate the Ex Post Fact Clause of the United States Constitution.  Hayes’ invitation to reverse rulings in State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460 (2016), State v. Robinson, 306 Kan. 431 (2017), and State v. Lloyd, 308 Kan. 735 (2018), is declined. 

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6620; K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6620; K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-6620; K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 22-3717(b)(1); K.S.A. 21-4635, -4706(c)

criminal law- evidence - jury instructions - motions - statutes
State v. Ingham
reno district court—affirmed
court of appeals—affirmed
No. 111,444—november 30, 2018

FACTS: Ingham convicted of possession or use of a commercial explosive. On appeal he claimed: (1) district court erred by denying motion in limine to prevent State from using “pipe bomb” and “improvised explosive device” to describe the beer-can bomb; (2) a sheriff deputy improperly testified his opinion that Ingham combined lawfully obtained items to make an illegal improvised explosive device; (3) a jury instruction wrongfully reworded the statutory definition of “commercial explosive” by equating it to an “improvised explosive device;” (4) trial court should have sua sponte instructed jury on the definition of a consumer firework; and (5) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Motion in Limine; (2) “Commercial Explosive” Testimony; (3) Instruction on Elements of Criminal Use of Explosives; (4) Consumer Firework Definition Instruction; (5) Cumulative Error

HELD:  Ingham failed to show that the use of words at issue was improper or that it unfairly prejudiced his defense. No abuse of district court’s discretion in allowing prosecution to use words and phrases that correctly and accurately described Ingham’s explosive device. 

Assuming without deciding that deputy’s statement was close enough to testimony that Ingham was guilty of the charged crimes, and assuming this error was of constitutional dimension, the error was harmless under facts in this case.

The challenged instruction moved beyond informing jury what the State was required to prove and informed jury that State had proved an improvised explosive device was a commercial explosive. This was error, but under facts in case, the error was harmless.

No error found in district court’s omission of an unrequested instruction that defined a consumer firework. Nothing in the record would have led jury to believe that Ingham’s beer-can explosive was a consumer firework, either in terms of construction or intended usage. 

The errors and assumed errors did not affect the two possible jury choices in this case, and even taken in their cumulative effect, did not prejudicially affect the jury’s verdict.

CONCURRENCE (Nuss, C.J.): Affirms Ingham’s conviction, but departs from majority’s rationale regarding the motion in limine. Would hold the district court abused its discretion by allowing repeated references to the “I.E.D.” that Ingham had constructed. Under facts in case, however, cumulative effect of errors is still harmless.

CONCURRENCE (Biles, J., joined by Stegall, J.): Agrees the conviction must be affirmed but would hold: district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in limine; no error in the elements instruction on criminal use of explosives; and the one assumed error of opinion testimony regarding the beer can bomb provides no basis for cumulative error.

CONCURRENCE (Stegall, J.):  Agrees with court’s judgments, but registers doubts about statute under which Ingham was convicted. Would welcome briefing on whether K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5814(a)(1) is too vague, indefinite, or overbroad to survive constitutional scrutiny. 

DISSENT (Johnson, J., joined by Luckert and Beier, JJ.): Would reverse and remand for a fair trial. Takes exception to majority’s cavalier disregard of the inflammatory connotation associated with the term I.E.D. Would find district court abused its discretion in denying motion in limine, and the error was compounded by deputy’s opinion testimony which improperly stated a legal conclusion on unlawfulness. Scales of justice were further tipped by instruction which erroneously equated “improvised explosive device” with “commercial explosive.” Criticizes majority for engaging in impermissible judicial fact-finding or mere supposition in determining a consumer firework definition instruction was not factually appropriate in this case. Agrees the omission of that instruction was not clearly erroneous, but submits the factual record did not preclude it.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5814(a)(1), -5814(c)(2), 60-456; K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5601(b)(1), -5814(a)(1), -5814(a)(2)

criminal procedure—sentences—statutes
state v. rice
wyandotte district court—reversed and remanded
No. 117,322—november 30, 2018

FACTS: Rice’s 1992 conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and hard 40 sentence were affirmed on appeals. Some twenty years later, Rice appealed from his unsuccessful attempt to seek collateral relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but found ineffective assistance during the penalty phase. Sentence vacated and remanded for a new penalty phase hearing and resentencing. At resentencing, district court ordered a life sentence with possibility of parole after 15 years. Two months later Rice filed pro se motion to modify or reduce his sentence, arguing he should have been given an updated PSI that accounted for his failing physical condition. He also argued the court could have ordered probation. District court denied modification, holding that Rice received the only sentence available under the law and that his motion for a new PSI was rendered moot. Rice appealed claiming: (1) district court had jurisdiction to modify or reduce his sentence and that reduction is mandatory with a recommendation from the Secretary of Corrections; and (2) district court erred in concluding that probation was not an available option.

ISSUES: (1) Jurisdiction to Modify or Reduce the Sentence on Remand; (2) Availability of Probation

HELD: Statutes applicable to Rice’s motion to modify his pre-KSGA sentence are reviewed. The re-sentencing court was correct in not modifying Rice’s sentence to a lesser term of years, but under State v. Sargent, 217 Kan. 634 (1975), if secretary of corrections unequivocally recommended reducing Rice’s life sentence to a term of years, the court would have to modify it unless best interest of the public would be jeopardized or Rice’s welfare would not be served by the reduction. As to whether the re-sentencing court was required to order an updated PSI that may have resulted in a facility recommendation that Rice should serve a lesser sentence, there is precedent for finding no error in district court’s refusal to do so.

Court of Appeals vacated Rice’s original sentence, so on remand the district court was imposing Rice’s sentence anew. Probation is a possibility for a person convicted of a Class A felony. The 2016 resentencing court abused its discretion by not understanding its own authority and being unable to consider exercising it. On remand for resentencing, district court should exercise its discretion to consider probation on the record.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3601; K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq.; K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3401, -3401(c), -4602(3), -4603 et seq., -4603(2), -4603(4), -4604(1), 22-3717(b); K.S.A. 21-4501(a) (Ensley 1988)

appeals—courts—criminal law—criminal procedure—evidence—jury instructions—motions
state v. sims
wyandotte district court—affirmed
No. 115,038—November 30, 2018

FACTS: Sims convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. On appeal he challenged: (1) district court’s denial of motion for mistrial after State witnesses violated orders in limine prohibiting mention of Sims’ battery; (2) the sequential ordering of jury instructions for degrees of homicide; (3) district court’s failure to give a limiting instruction to accompany Sims’ stipulation to a prior felony conviction; and (4) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Mistrial, (2) Ordering Language in Instructions, (3) Prior Felony Limiting Instruction, (4) Cumulative Error

HELD: On facts of case, district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Sims’ motion for mistrial. State witnesses made three brief, cryptic references to material prohibited by orders in limine; and the judge recognized the errors and issued a curative admonition in one instance and moved the trial immediately to other topics in the second and third instances.

The simultaneous consideration rule in State v. Graham, 275 Kan. 831 (2003), and the exception to that rule as recognized in State v. Bell, 280 Kan. (2005), are reviewed. Bell’s mutual exclusivity test is problematic, and the simultaneous consideration rule in Graham is is overruled. In this case, the district court’s instructions were legally appropriate.

Even if evidence in a stipulation to a prior felony conviction is subject to K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-455 and its requirement that a district judge give a limiting instruction, the failure to give such an instruction in this case was not clear error.

Errors discerned or assumed in this case were discrete and did not compound one another. On the record presented, the totality of circumstances did not prejudice Sims or deprive him of a fair trial.

CONCURRENCE (Beier, J., joined by Lukert and Johnson, JJ.): Concurs with the result and all rationale but for majority’s reasoning regarding sequential and simultaneous jury consideration of degrees of homicide. Agrees that Bell and following cases are infected with a logical fallacy and would overrule them, but would not overrule Graham. Would hold the ordering language in the district court’s instructions was error, but not reversible error standing alone or under the cumulative error doctrine.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3414(3), 60-455; K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5109(b); and K.S.A. 22-3423, -3423(c)

constitutional law—criminal law—evidence—jury instructions—statutes
state v. williams
sedgwick district court—affirmed
court of appeals—affirmed
No. 108,394—november 30, 2018

FACTS: Williams forcibly entered residence of a woman he had been dating and where Williams had spent some nights the previous two weeks. Jury convicted him on charges of aggravated burglary, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and domestic battery. Williams appealed. Court of Appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Review granted on six claims as reordered and combined by the court: (1) insufficient evidence supported his aggravated burglary conviction; (2) the aggravated burglary and domestic battery convictions were inconsistent and mutually exclusive; (3) district court erroneously instructed jury on aggravated assault when it told jury the State had to prove Willams used “a deadly weapon, a baseball bat;” (4) district court failed to instruct on lesser included offenses of assault and battery; (5) Kansas’ aggravated battery statute, K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5413(b)(1)(B), is unconstitutionally vague; and (6) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Sufficiency of the Evidence, (2) Mutually Exclusive Verdicts, (3) Jury Instruction - Aggravated Assault, (4) Jury Instruction - Lesser Included Offenses, (5) Constitutionality of Statute, (6) Cumulative Error

HELD: No authority supports argument that authority to enter is a property right tied to status of Williams’ residence. Aggravated burglary statute does not require State to prove (or disprove) a burglar’s residence. Whether Williams and the victim both had a property interest in the residence is a closer question because no direct evidence about property interests of the two parties, but there was circumstantial evidence the victim had to give permission for Williams to enter and that he recognized or acquiesced in victim’s right to exclude him. Sufficient evidence presented that Williams entered the house without authority.

Court of Appeals’ elements approach is a valid method for determining if verdicts are mutually exclusive. Under facts in case, Williams did not establish mutually exclusive verdicts.

District court did not err in setting out State’s claim that Williams used baseball bat as a deadly weapon. State v. Sutherland, 248 Kan. 96 (1991), and State v. Sisson, 302 Kan. 123 (2015), are reviewed. Here, district court did not explicitly state a baseball bat is a deadly weapon, but rather stated what the State had to prove. State v. Ingham (this day decided) is distinguished. District courts are cautioned in constructing this type of instruction.

District court erred in failing to instruct on assault and battery as lesser included offenses of aggravated assault and aggravated battery. Instructions on the lesser included offenses were legally appropriate, and under standard in State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195 (2012), were factually appropriate. On facts in this case, however, no clear error.

K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5413(b)(1)(B) is not unconstitutionally vague. Individuals of ordinary intelligence can understand what is meant by “can be inflicted” language. Court of Appeals’ reasoning in cases rejecting constitutional challenges to the statute is approved.

Cumulative effect of the two instructional errors did not deny Williams a fair trial.

CONCURRENCE (Rosen, J., joined by Nuss, C.J. and Stegall, J.): Agrees the convictions should be affirmed, but disagrees with majority’s opinion that district court was required to instruct jury on the lesser included offenses. Consistent with his concurring and dissenting opinions in cases relating to application of K.S.A. 22-3414(3), no error in not instructing jury on lesser included offenses of misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor assault.

CONCURRENCE (Johnson, J., joined by Beier, J.): Would hold the district court’s aggravated assault elements instruction was erroneous, but even if jury had been clearly told to find the baseball bat met the definition of a deadly weapon, the result would have been the same.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 20-3018(b), 22-3414(3), 60-261; K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5109(b), -5412, -5413(b)(1)(B), -5414, -5414(c)(1), -5807(b); and K.S.A. 77-201, - 201, Twenty-third

Court of Appeals

Criminal

criminal procedure—probation—sentences—statutes
state v. jones
reno district court—vacated and remanded
No. 118,268—November 30, 3018

FACTS: Jones convicted of failing to register as a drug offender. Prison term imposed with a 24-month period of post-release supervision, and a dispositional departure for 36 months probation. Probation revoked in 2014. Revocation sentence pronounced from bench was 51-month prison term with no mention of post-release supervision, but journal entry of probation revocation ordered 85-month prison term with 24-months post-release supervision. Jones appealed. Court of Appeals ordered remand, finding the sentence effective when pronounced from the bench. On remand, district court filed journal entry nunc pro tunc ordering 51-month prison term with 24-month post-release supervision. Jones filed motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the post-release supervision term should be vacated. District court denied the motion. Jones appealed, arguing in part for first time that district court’s silence on the postrelease supervision term at the revocation hearing constituted a lawful modification of her sentence under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(b). Supplemental briefing ordered on what effect, if any, K.S.A. 2017 Sup. 21-6804(e)(2)(C) had on the appeal. 

ISSUE:  (1) Probation Revocation Sentence; (2) K.S.A. 2107 Supp. 21-6804(e)(2)(C)

HELD:  Based on State v. McKnight, 292 Kan. 776 (2011), State v. Sandoval, 308 Kan. 960 (2018), and State v. Roth, 308 Kan. 970 (2018), district court erred when it later included a 24-month post-release supervision term in the journal entry. Although the district court may not have intended to vacate the postrelease provision term upon revoking Jones’ probation, the court was authorized to do so and the new lawful sentence was effective when pronounced from the bench.

K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6804(e)(2)(C) does not apply to a sentence that is lawfully modified at a probation revocation hearing under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(b) because a postrelease supervision term is not required by law as part of the sentence when the district court sentences a defendant anew after revoking probation. Here, the district court imposed a lawful lesser sentence of a 51-month prison term with no post-release supervision period. This sentence was effective when pronounced from the bench at the revocation hearing and cannot later be modified.

STATUTES:  K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6804(e)(2)(C), -6805(e)(2)(C), 22-3504, -3716(b), -3716(d)(1)

Tags:  Attorney Discipline  Johnson District  Reno District  Rice District  Sedgwick District  Wyandotte District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

September 5 and September 7, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, September 10, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

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

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

CIVIL

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

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

ISSUE: (1) Validity of employment contract

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

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

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

 

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

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

ISSUES: (1) Assignment of subrogation rights

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

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

criminal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

May 5, 2017, Appellate Court Digests

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Updated: Monday, September 10, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

CIVIL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW—CIVIL PROCEDURE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS V. KANSAS RACING & GAMING COMM'N
SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 115,978—MAY 5, 2017

FACTS: Castle Rock Casino Resort, LLC and the Board of County Commissioners of Cherokee County filed this action after the Kansas Lottery Commission selected Kansas Crossing Casino, LLC to manage a state-owned and operated casino in Southeast Kansas. The Lottery Commission rejected Castle Rock's proposal and suggested the state would be better served by a smaller casino in Crawford County, primarily because Castle Rock's proposed site was directly across the state line from a large casino in Oklahoma. After the Lottery Commission made its selection, the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission received many public comments, many of which disagreed with the Lottery Commission's choice. After a public hearing, the KRGC voted unanimously to approve Kansas Crossing's proposed facility. Cherokee County sought review in district court, as did Castle rock. The district court denied the requests for relief, finding that the decision to select Kansas Crossing was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in light of the Southeast Kansas market. The motion to alter or amend was denied.

ISSUES: (1) Was the scope of discovery appropriate; (2) was there error when ruling on the motion to amend the petitions; (3) was there error in refusing to allow an evidentiary hearing; (4) did the KRGC misapply the lottery act by failing to make required findings; (5) was the KRGC's decision supported by sufficient evidence

HELD: The scope of discovery was within the trial court's discretion and it was unclear whether traditional discovery was available in proceedings under the KJRA. It did not matter in this case, though, since the district court disallowed discovery because the requested discovery did not relate to issues raised in the petition for judicial review. Because Appellants did not brief the issue of whether amended petitions would have prejudiced the defendants, the district court was affirmed on that issue. The request for an evidentiary hearing was a duplicative renewed motion for discovery that was properly denied. The KRGC has broad discretion to decide which gaming contract is best for the state. The statute does not specifically require findings of fact. The record as a whole shows substantial evidence to support the choice of Kansas Crossing.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 74-8702(f)(2), -8734(b), -8734(g), -8734(h) -8735, -8735(a), -8735(h), -8736(b), -8736(e), -8737, 77-603(a), -614(b), -614(c), -621(a), -621(c), -621(d); K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 74-8736(b), 77-621(c); K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 74-8702(f), -8734(a); K.S.A. 77-606, -619(a)

 CRIMINAL

criminal law—sentences
state v. reese
sedgwick district court—affirmed
court of appeals—affirmed
no. 110,021—may 5, 2017

FACTS: Reese convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The sentencing court applied recent amendments to Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) making Reese’s use of deadly weapon a person felony, and lengthening the time violent offenders are required to register. Reese filed post-judgment motions to challenge the retroactivity of the KORA amendments. District court ruled that it lost subject matter jurisdiction once the sentencing order became final. Reese appealed, arguing the district court possessed jurisdiction to consider his challenge as a motion to correct an illegal sentence. In unpublished opinion, Court of Appeals cited cases that rejected a similar argument, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Reese’s petition for review granted.

ISSUE: Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence - Constitutional Claim

HELD: Lower courts had jurisdiction to hear and consider Reese’s motions to correct an illegal sentence, but Reese’s claim is premised on allegations of constitutional deficiencies. As in State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217 (2016), Reese advanced no meritorious argument demonstrating his sentence is illegal, so his claim fails on the merits. Judgments below are affirmed as right for the wrong reason.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-4902(e)(2), -4906(a)(1); K.S.A. 22-3504, -3504(1), -4901 et seq.

 

criminal law—sentences
 state v. Wood
sedgwick district court—affirmed; court of appeals—affirmed
no. 111,243—may 5, 2017

FACTS: Wood was convicted in 2003 of attempted indecent liberties with a child. Sentence imposed included certification of Wood as a sex offender with duty to register. Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) was amended in 2011 to increase registration period from 10 to 25 years. Woods filed motion challenging the retroactive application of the 2011 amendments. District court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to consider Wood’s constitutional claims. Wood appealed, arguing the district court possessed jurisdiction to consider his challenge as a motion to correct an illegal sentence. In unpublished opinion, Court of Appeals cited cases that rejected a similar argument, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Wood’s petition for review granted.

ISSUE: Motion to correct illegal sentence—Constitutional claim

HELD: Lower courts had jurisdiction to hear and consider Wood’s motions to correct an illegal sentence, but Wood’s claim was premised on allegations of constitutional deficiencies. As in State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217 (2016), Wood advanced no meritorious argument demonstrating his sentence was illegal, so his claim failed on the merits. Judgments below were affirmed as right for the wrong reason.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 22-4906(b)(1)(E); K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-4902(c)(2), -4906(b); K.S.A. 22-3504, -3504(1), -4901 et seq.

 

constitutional law—criminal law—search and seizure
state v. zwickl
reno district court—reversed and remanded
court of appeals—affirmed
no. 113,362—may 5, 2017

FACTS: Officers executed a warrant for search of Zwickl’s car and discovered pounds of marijuana. This led to issuance of a search warrant for Zickl’s residence where more drug evidence was discovered. State charged Zwickl with possession of marijuana with intent to sell and other related offenses. He filed motion to suppress, alleging the affidavit supporting the vehicle search warrant provided insufficient evidence to find probable cause for issuing the warrant. District court granted the motion, finding it entirely unreasonable for an officer to believe the vehicle search warrant was valid. State filed interlocutory appeal. In unpublished opinion, Court of Appeals reversed, finding sufficient indicia of probable cause for officers to reasonably rely in good faith on the warrant. Zwickl’s petition for review was granted.

ISSUE: Good-faith exception—probable cause determination

HELD: Applying Leon good-faith exception to exclusionary rule, adopted in State v. Hoeck, 284 Kan. 441 (2007), the details in the affidavit supporting the vehicle search warrant were examined, including the Colorado surveillance of Zwickl. That affidavit contained sufficient indicia of probable cause such that an officer’s reliance on the warrant was not entirely unreasonable. Panel’s decision was affirmed. District court’s suppression of the evidence was reversed and case was remanded.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 60-2101(b)

Tags:  administrative law  civil procedure  constitutional law  Reno District  search and seizure  Sedgwick District  Shawnee District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)