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

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: criminal procedure  statutes  constitutional law  Attorney Discipline  evidence  Sedgwick District  Sedgwick District Court  Criminal Law  motions  jury instructions  Appeals  sentencing  Johnson District Court  Shawnee District Court  Wyandotte District  jurisdiction  Shawnee District  juries  Sentences  Fourth Amendment  Johnson District  Reno District  Saline District  Sedgwick  8807  appellate procedure  habeas corpus  Reno District Court  search and seizure  contracts 

July 31, 2020

Posted By Patti Van Slyke, Monday, August 3, 2020

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

JURISDICTION—MUNICIPALITIES—OFFENDER REGISTRATION
CITY OF SHAWNEE V. ADEM
JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 121,328—JULY 31, 2020

FACTS: Adem was convicted of sexual battery in Shawnee Municipal Court and he filed a notice of appeal to the district court. A jury convicted him as charged in district court. As part of his sentence, Adem was required to register as a sex offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. He now appeals that finding.

ISSUES: (1) Appellate jurisdiction; (2) applicability of KORA to municipal court convictions;

HELD: The court has jurisdiction to consider Adem's appeal because KORA allows for appeals where registration has been triggered by district court findings. KORA acts in concert with, but not as part of, the Kansas Code of Criminal Procedure or other sentencing statutes. It is its own separate act with its own regulatory purposes. Adem is correct that there is no statute that specifically applies KORA to violations of municipal codes. But K.S.A. 22-4902(b)(7) defines a sex offender as any person who has been convicted of an offense that is "comparable" to one specifically enumerated in the Act. The municipal sexual battery act is identical to the state statute, and Adem was properly required to register under KORA.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-4902(b)(5), -4902(b)(7), -4902(t)(1); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3602, -3602(a); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5505(a); K.S.A. 22-2102, -2103; -3602, -3610(a), 46-1211(b)

CHILD SUPPORT—JURISDICTION
CHALMERS V. BURROUGH
SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 121,108—JULY 31, 2020

FACTS: A Florida district court required Chalmers to pay Burrough child support to help care for their daughter. The support amount was based on Chalmers' income as a player for the Miami Heat basketball team. Chalmers retired from the team in 2018 and moved away from Florida. Burrough and the child are Kansas residents. After his employment changed, Chalmers wanted to modify his child support obligation. But he could not do so in Florida because he was no longer a Florida resident. In 2018, Chalmers filed a petition to register and modify the Florida order in Kansas under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). Burrough did not dispute Chalmers' attempt to register the judgment, even though he did not comply with UIFSA requirements by including copies of the Florida support order with the filing. The district court registered the Florida order in Kansas and later temporarily modified the support obligation as agreed to by the parties. Burrough then filed a motion to set aside, claiming that she never agreed to the terms. Chalmers also moved for permission to amend his petition to add the required copies of the Florida support order. Burrough countered with a motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Florida support order was never properly registered because Chalmers did not comply with UIFSA requirements when registering the order. The district court agreed with Burrough and vacated its modification of the support order, finding that the presence of a certified copy of the Florida support order was fundamental to registering the order in Kansas. Chalmers appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Whether objection to jurisdiction was waived; (2) whether substantial compliance with UIFSA is adequate

HELD: Kansas only has jurisdiction to modify an out-of-state child support order if that order is first registered in this state. It is undisputed that Chalmers failed to attach to his registration petition two copies, including one certified copy, of his Florida order. Challenges to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even outside of the 20-day window contemplated by UIFSA. A Kansas court has no authority to modify an out-of-state child support order until that order is properly registered in Kansas. Litigants are not expected to strictly comply with UIFSA requirements. But attachment of the Florida order was a critical component of the UIFSA registration requirements. The failure to attach two copies of the order meant that Chalmers did not substantially comply with UIFSA and the order was never properly registered in Kansas, divesting the district court of jurisdiction to modify it.

DISSENT: (Atcheson, J.) UIFSA's procedural requirements should not be equated with subject matter jurisdiction. The district court had jurisdiction to modify Chalmers' out-of-state child support order.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-36,204(b), -36,205, -36,602(a), -36,602(b), -36,603(a), -36,605, -36,606, -36,607, 36,609, -36,610, -36,611(a)

ATTORNEYS—CONSUMER PROTECTION
HERNANDEZ V. PISTOTNIK
SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 120,228—JULY 31, 2020

FACTS: Yudi Hernandez was badly injured in an automobile accident at the age of 13. Yudi's older sister, Mirna, helped her family find an attorney to act on Yudi's behalf. A family friend recommended Brad Pistotnik based on Brad's television commercials. Yudi and her family had an initial consultation with Brian Pistotnik, and she retained the Pistotnik firm to represent her. The firm obtained settlement officers for policy limits from all involved parties. But Yudi's father fired the Pistotnik firm and hired Steven Brave to complete the settlement. Yudi received her settlement, but Brian sued her father to recover the costs and attorney fees that were detailed in an attorney fee lien. Yudi sued the Pistotnik firm, claiming they defrauded her under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Brad moved for summary judgment, claiming that there was no evidence of fraud and that Yudi was not an aggrieved party under the KCPA. The district court granted Brad's motion, and Yudi appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Applicability of the KCPA; (2) fraud claim; (3) viability of discovery requests; (4) transfer of venue

HELD: The KCPA does not define the term "aggrieved." But case law clarifies that in order to recover under the KCPA, Yudi must show that she was legally harmed and that her harm was causally connected to Brad's advertising. The filing of the attorney fee lien did not harm Yudi. And Yudi cannot show that she relied on any representations in Brad's advertisements when hiring the firmshe was in a medically-induced coma at the time and played no part in the decision of which firm to hire. The district court correctly found that Yudi cannot recover under the KCPA. When alleging fraud, the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity. Yudi failed to establish that she relied, either directly or indirectly, on any fraudulent representation by the Pistotniks. Complaints to the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator are not discoverable, and the district court did not err by refusing to require Brad or Brian to turn over such documents to Yudi. And settlement agreements which Yudi wanted to obtain in discovery were confidential, meaning the district court did not err by refusing to compel their discovery. The district court did not abuse its discretion by transferring venue to Sedgwick County, where the defendants were located and where all the legal work was completed.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-208(a), -209(b), -226, -2103(h); K.S.A. 50-623(b), -634(a), 60-609(a)

criminal

criminal procedure—probation—sentencing—statutes
state v. dunham
saline district court—affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded
no. 121,081—july 31, 2020

FACTS: While on probation for drug crime convictions in two cases, Dunham committed additional crimes leading to three more cases, the last two committed while Dunham was on felony release status. Addressing all five cases the same day, district court revoked probation in Cases 1 and 2 and imposed consecutive prison sentences in the additional three cases, finding Kansas law required that sentences in Cases 4 and 5 run consecutive to each other and consecutive to Case 3. Dunham appealed claiming district court erred by concluding it lacked discretion to impose the last three sentences concurrently. He also claimed the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation, arguing drug treatment would better address his addiction.

ISSUES: (1) Multiple sentences; (2) probation revocation

HELD: District court erred in finding it had no discretion to impose Dunham’s sentences in Cases 3, 4, and 5 consecutive to each other. Law related to concurrent and consecutive sentencing in felony cases is examined including the interpretation of statutory language, the statutes and caselaw related to concurrent and consecutive sentences, and the application of applicable statutes to facts of Dunham’s case. Dunham had multiple sentences imposed on different cases on the same day, so this case is controlled by State v. Edwards, 252 Kan. 860 (1993), which interpreted the previous version of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6606(a) as allowing a court flexibility—regardless of sentence ordered in any individual case such as the consecutive prison term in Dunham’s Case 3 sentence—to run the sentences in multiple cases concurrently or consecutively as the court finds appropriate. District court’s order running the sentences consecutively is vacated and case is remanded for court to use its discretion in deciding whether the sentences in Cases 4 and 5 should be consecutive to or concurrent with each other and to Case 3.  

            District court did not act unreasonably by revoking Dunham’s probation. Facts support the district court’s conclusion that Dunham was no longer amenable to probation.    

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6601, -6604(f)(4), -6606(a), -6606(c), -6606(d), -6606(e); K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6604(f)(4),  -6606(d); K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 21-4603d, -4720(a); K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4608(1), -4608(3); K.S.A. 1984 Supp. 21-4608, -4608(2), -4608(4), -4608(5); K.S.A. 21-4608(a), -4608(c), 22- 2801, -2802, -2804

Tags:  attorneys  Author: Patti Van Slyke  child support  consumer protections  criminal procedure  Johnson District Court  jurisdiction  municipalities  offender registration  probation  Saline District Court  Sedgwick District Court  sentencing  statutes 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

July 17, 2020 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, July 20, 2020

 

Kansas Supreme Court

 

CRIMINAL

 

ATTORNEYS—CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—MENTAL COMPETENCY

STATE V. BURDEN

SUMNER DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED; COURT OF APPEALS—AFFIRMED

NO. 116,819 - JULY 17, 2020

 

FACTS: Burden was charged with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. District court found she was competent to stand trial pursuant to a court-ordered competency exam and evaluation that found, in part, that Burden had “no significant impairment that is psychiatric in nature.”  District court also allowed Burden to represent herself, and appointed standby counsel. Jury convicted her on drug possession charges, and acquitted on the paraphernalia charge. Burden appealed, arguing district court used an incorrect standard to determine whether she was competent to represent herself. Court of appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Review granted.

 

ISSUE: (1) Standard for determining mental competency

 

HELD: Three distinct but related concepts are examined—mental competency to stand trial, the capacity to waive the right to counsel, and mental competency to self-represent. Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), allows a district court judge to deny a request to waive counsel if a defendant has a severe mental illness. But there is no error when a court does not appoint counsel for a defendant who wishes to exercise the right of self-representation if there is no evidence of the defendant's severe mental illness. Here, the district court did not err in allowing Burden to exercise her constitutional right of self-representation when the record does not establish that she suffers from a severe mental illness.  

 

STATUTE: K.S.A. 22-3301, -3301(1)

 

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—MOTIONS—STATUTES

STATE V. EDWARDS

SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED

NO. 120,600—JULY 17, 2020

 

FACTS: Jury convicted Edwards in 1996 of first-degree murder, conspiracy to possess with intent to sell hallucinogenic drugs, and aggravated robbery. In 2011, he filed motion for DNA testing of items found at crime scene. District court granted the motion in 2013, and for additional, independent DNA analysis of the evidence. District court held a 2017 hearing and found the DNA results were favorable to Edwards, but denied Edwards’ motion for a new trial because the DNA evidence was “not reasonably probable to lead to a jury reaching a different result.”  Edwards appealed.

 

ISSUE: (1) DNA testing statute

 

HELD: Even when additional DNA testing ordered under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5212 leads to results favorable to the defense, a district judge does not necessarily abuse his or her discretion by denying a motion for new trial. As in State v. LaPointe, 309 Kan. 299 (2019), the non-DNA evidence against Edwards is strong. District judge did not abuse her discretion by concluding there was no reasonable probability the DNA results would have changed the original trial’s outcome. District judge’s denial of Edwards’ motion for a new trial is affirmed.

 

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-2512, -2512(f)(2)

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL LAW—EVIDENCE—STATUTES

STATE V. HARRIS

SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED; COURT OF APPEALS—REVERSED

NO. 116,515—JULY 17, 2020

 

FACTS: Harris, a convicted felon on parole, was in an altercation when he opened a pocketknife with a 3.5 inch serrated blade for protection, then dropped it when police arrived. State charged him with aggravated assault, criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, and criminal use of a weapon. Harris filed motion to dismiss the possession charge, claiming the statutory definition in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304 of a “knife” was unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied. District court denied the motion. Harris also sought to introduce evidence of parole officer who advised him he could carry a knife less than 4 inches long, and similar info in Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) orientation and handbook. Adopting State’s position that parole officers and KDOC staff are not legally authorized to interpret statutes, district court excluded all evidence in support of Harris’ mistake-of-law defense.  Harris appealed, claiming district court erred by rejecting his vagueness challenge to the statute and by excluding all evidence supporting his mistake-of -fact defense. In unpublished opinion Court of Appeals rejected the constitutional challenge, but reversed the trial court’s evidentiary ruling on the mistake-of-fact evidence and remanded for a new trial. Review granted.

 

ISSUES: (1) Constitutionality of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304; (2) evidence—mistake of law defense

 

HELD: Case is resolved on a facial challenge to the statute. The residual clause "or any other dangerous or deadly cutting instrument of like character" in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide an explicit and objective standard of enforcement. Similar problem in City of Lincoln Center v. Farmway Co-Op, Inc., 298 Kan. 540 (2013)(noise ordinance is unconstitutionally vague). This constitutional failure began with legislative enactment that impermissibly delegated legislative power to the executive and judicial branches.

            Because case is resolved in Harris’ favor on constitutional grounds, the evidentiary issue raised in State’s petition is not reached.

 

DISSENT (Biles, J.)(joined by Rosen, J. and Green, J.): K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304 is not unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied to Harris. Majority imposes too strict a standard on Legislature’s ability to formulate criminal laws. Analyzing K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304(c)(1) in light of the facts, the statute is sufficiently clear to have informed Harris it was unlawful to possess his knife, and the statute is sufficiently clear to stave off any contention that authorities arbitrarily prosecuted him for having it. Photo of Harrisknife is attached. Majority’s reading  of Farmway is criticized.

            Would reverse Harris’ conviction because he is entitled to pursue a mistake-of-law defense. KDOC is legally authorized to interpret the criminal-possession statute, and the KDOC handbook could be read by Harris as containing the agency’s official interpretation of the statute. Trial court’s error in not allowing Harris to pursue a mistake-of-law defense was not harmless in this case.

 

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5207(b)(4), -6304, -6304(c)(1), -6304(c)(2); K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5207(b)(4); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5111(aa)(5), -5111(p)(2), 75-5217, -5217(a), -5217(b), -5217(c), -5217(d); K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-630; K.S.A. 21-6301, -6304, 75-5201, -5216

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—JURIES—STATUTES

STATE V. HARRISON

JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED; COURT OF APPEALS—AFFIRMED

NO. 116,670—JULY 17, 2020

 

FACTS: Jury convicted Harrison of various crimes committed in 2015. During deliberation, judge discussed jury question with Harrison, counsel and prosecutor all present. All agreed to send jury a written response. Harrison appealed on four claims of trial error, including his challenge at not being present when written response was passed to the jury by court staff. In unpublished opinion court of appeals affirmed the convictions, holding in part the district court violated Harrison’s constitutional right to be present at a critical stage in the proceedings by responding to the jury in writing rather than giving the answer in open court with Harrison present, but the error was harmless. Review granted limited to the district court’s failure to have Harrison present when jury received the answer.

 

ISSUE: (1) Response to jury’s question

 

HELD: District court complied with both statutory and constitutional requirements. 2014 revision of K.S.A. 22-3420 allows judges to answer jury questions in open court or in writing. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3405(a) is analyzed in light of that revision. If a criminal trial judge responds to a jury question in writing by having court personnel deliver the response to the jury in the jury room: the delivery is not a stage of the trial at which a defendant must be present under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3405(a);  K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3420(d) does not require a defendant’s presence when the jury receives that response; and the defendant’s right to be present during critical stages of the proceedings is not a violation under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause or the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing in the record reasonably suggests Harrison’s presence was essential or critical to a fair and just determination of a substantial issue. Review of panel’s harmless error analysis is unnecessary.

 

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3405(a), -3420(d); K.S.A. 22-2102, -3405(1), -3420(3)

 

 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—MOTIONS—POSTCONVICTION RELIEF—STATUTES

STATE V. HILL

OSAGE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED

NO. 119,359—JULY 17, 2020

 

FACTS: Pursuant to amended plea agreement, Hill entered no a contest plea in 2000 to various charges including premeditated first-degree murder. No direct appeal taken. Hill then pursued various post-conviction motions: 2004 motion under K.S.A. 60-1507; 2008 motion to withdraw his no contest pleas; 2014 and 2015 motions including new motion to withdraw pleas and motion to correct illegal sentence. District court denied each motion, and when appealed, the court of appeals affirmed. Present appeal is from district court’s denial of Hill’s 2017 pro se “Motion to Set Aside a Void Judgment Under Due Process of Law and K.S.A. 22-3210.”  The district court construed the motion as one to withdraw pleas under K.S.A. 22-3210, and denied the motion as untimely. District court further found no manifest injustice supported withdrawal of the pleas, found Hill was represented by competent counsel, there was no coercion or unfair advantage taken of Hill, and his pleas were knowingly and understandingly made. Hill appealed, arguing trial court errors, including incorrectly analyzing the motion as one to withdraw plea instead of a motion to void convictions and sentence, denied Hill due process.

 

ISSUE: (1) Due process—motion to correct illegal sentence

 

HELD: Trial judge correctly construed Hill’s various arguments as another effort to withdraw his pleas. Hill’s 2017 motion was filed outside the one year time limitation added to K.S.A. 22-3210 in 2009, and no grounds of excusable neglect for his untimely filing are asserted by Hill or otherwise demonstrated. Hill’s motion is procedurally barred. Trial court’s decision is affirmed.

 

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3210, -3210(a), -3210(b), -3210(d), -3210(d)(1), -3210(d)(2),  -3210(e)(1), -3210(e)(2); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3210, -3210(e)(1); K.S.A. 60-1507

 

 

Kansas Court of Appeals

 

CIVIL

 

DUISEARCH AND SEIZURE
CITY OF COLBY V. FOSTER
THOMAS DISTRICT COURT
REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 121,373
JULY 17, 2020

 

FACTS: A municipal court convicted Foster of DUI, and Foster appealed to district court. Prior to trial, Foster filed a motion to suppress evidence, including the breathalyzer results. During a hearing on that motion, Foster discovered that law enforcement administered the breath test before providing the implied consent advisories. The district court denied the motion, holding that at the time Foster was arrested, there was no requirement to provide the advisories because Foster was given the breath test incident to arrest. Foster was convicted after a bench trial, and he appealed.

 

ISSUE: (1) Whether the district court erred by denying the motion to suppress

 

HELD: The law in effect at the time of the criminal act controls. Foster was arrested on May 6, 2018, and on that date the amendments to K.S.A. 8-1001 had not yet been enacted. K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 8-1001(k) required that Foster receive notice of his statutory rights. There is not substantial evidence that Foster consented to the search and because he never received the statutory advisory, his consent could not have been knowing or voluntary. Similarly, Kansas law required that Foster be given the consent advisory even if the search of the breath test was done incidental to an arrest. It was not enough for the officer to deliver the implied consent advisories after the breath test had been conducted. That was not substantial compliance. The evidence should have been suppressed.

 

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 8-1001(a), -1001(b), -1001(k)

 

DUIIMPLIED CONSENT
FISHER V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
DOUGLAS DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED
NO. 118,830
JULY 17, 2020

 

FACTS: Officer Russell saw Fisher speeding through town. Russell caught up with Fisher, who showed signs of impairment including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and an unsteady gait. Russell arrested Fisher and gave him the implied consent advisories from the DC-70 form. Fisher refused to take a blood or breath test without an attorney present, so Russell obtained a warrant to draw blood. The test confirmed that Fisher was under the influence, and his driver's license was subsequently suspended. The suspension was affirmed by both the Kansas Department of Revenue and the district court, which found that reasonable grounds existed to require testing. Fisher appealed.

 

ISSUES: (1) Probable cause to arrest; (2) adequacy of implied consent advisory

 

HELD: Russell observed Fisher speeding and running a red light. Russell also had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes, and he smelled strongly of alcohol. Under the totality of the circumstances, there was substantial competent evidence to support the district court's conclusion that Russell had reasonable grounds to believe that Fisher was driving under the influence. The DC-70 form given to Fisher did not tell him that he had a constitutional right to refuse to submit to the test. An arresting officer must substantially comply with statutory notice provisions. In this case, Russell substantially complied by providing the implied consent notices from the revised DC-70 form. Fisher is correct that a driver is not required to consent to a requested test. But the use of the word "requires" in the statute is not by itself unduly coercive. The text, when read in its entirety, clearly informs drivers that they have the right to refuse testing.

 

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1001(a), -1001(k), -1020(q); K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1025

 

DUIEXCLUSIONARY RULE
JOHNSON V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
COWLEY DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED
NO. 119,151
JULY 17, 2020

 

FACTS: Trooper LaVelle responded to reports of a one-vehicle accident. He waited on the scene while EMS treated Johnson, the driver. As EMS was walking Johnson to his car, LaVelle noticed that Johnson was swaying as he walked. EMS told LaVelle that Johnson had given the wrong birth date while in the ambulance, and they noticed that he smelled strongly of alcohol. LaVelle noticed the same thing, along with bloodshot eyes. Johnson failed the field sobriety tests that he performed. As a result. LaVelle arrested Johnson and gave him a copy of the DC-70 form before asking him to submit to an evidentiary breath test. Johnson agreed to the breath test, which revealed that his breath alcohol level was over the legal limit. Johnson received the DC-27 form and his driver's license was suspended. The Kansas Department of Revenue affirmed the suspension, so Johnson sought judicial review. The district court found that the encounter between LaVelle and Johnson was appropriate, and Johnson appealed.

 

ISSUES: (1) Reasonable grounds to request a breath test; (2) due process violation

 

HELD: In order to request an evidentiary breath test, LaVelle needed to have reasonable grounds to believe that Johnson was driving under the influence and Johnson had to be under arrest, in custody, or involved in a car accident. In this case, Johnson was in an accident which damaged property. There was also probable cause that Johnson was driving under the influence, and the district court reviewed the evidence under the correct standard. The district court's decision was supported by substantial competent evidence, and the appellate court will not reweigh the evidence. It is undisputed that some of the information contained in the implied consent advisory was later declared unconstitutional. But criminal DUI law does not apply herespecifically, the exclusionary rule has no application in an administrative license proceeding. And even if it did, the good faith exception would apply here. Johnson failed to prove that he suffered a violation of his procedural due process rights. And any substantive due process analysis must be specifically analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Johnson could not prove that he suffered a substantive due process injury under the Fourth Amendment.

 

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 8-1001, -1002(a); K.S.A. 77-621(a)(1), -621(c)

 

IMPLIED CONSENT—JURISDICTION
SANDATE V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 119,514—JULY 17, 2020

 

FACTS: Officer Jordan was driving behind Sandate and noticed that he was not maintaining a lane or signaling lane changes. Jordan initiated a traffic stop and arrested Sandate, who admitted to consuming alcohol, showed signs of impairment, failed field sobriety tests and refused a preliminary breath test. Jordan gave Sandate the appropriate DC-70 form when requesting the test and the appropriate DC-27 form after the refusal. The Kansas Department of Revenue affirmed the suspension, as did the district court after Sandate requested judicial review. Sandate appealed.

 

ISSUES: (1) Subject matter jurisdiction; (2) substantial compliance of the DC-70 form; (3) use of the word "require"

 

HELD: Although other panels of the court of appeals have found otherwise, the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction. Any given court of appeals panel is not bound by another panel's decision. Each panel conducts an independent analysis and comes to its own conclusion. The DC-27 form has two components: notification and certification. It acts like a charging document and charging documents do not bestow or confer subject matter jurisdiction and defects in a complaint do not deprive a court of power to hear the case. KDOR had jurisdiction to suspend Sandate's driver's license. Sandate did not properly preserve for review part of his argument. The evidence before the district court shows that Jordan substantially complied with K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1001(k), and Kansas has never required strict compliance. Although the DC-70 uses the word "require", it is not coercive.

 

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 8-259, -1001(k), -1002, -1002(a), -1020; K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1001(k), -1002(a), -1002(f)

 

 

Tags:  attorneys  constitutional law  criminal law  criminal procedure  DUI  evidence  exclusionary rule  implied consent  juries  jurisdiction  mental competency  motions  postconviction relief  search and seizure  Sedgwick District Court  Shawnee District Court  statutes  Sumner District Court 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

December 13, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, December 16, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

Criminal 

attorneys—constitutional law—criminal law—
evidence—jury instructions—statutes
State v. Harris
Lyon district court—affirmed; court of appeals—affirmed
No. 112,883—December 13, 2019

FACTS: Harris held victim for two hours, repeatedly forcing her to move from room to room within small apartment while demanding money. Jury convicted him of robbery, kidnapping, and criminal threat. Harris appealed on claims of trial errors and ineffective assistance of counsel. Case remanded for Van Cleave hearing, with no relief granted. In unpublished opinion, Court of appeals affirmed, rejecting the ineffective assistance claim, and finding two trial errors which were harmless both individually and collectively. Review granted on adequately briefed issues. Harris claimed insufficient evidence supported the kidnapping conviction and reasserted his claims of cumulative error and ineffective assistance of counsel. For first time on appeal, he claimed district court erred in failing to instruct on criminal restraint as a lesser included offense and failing to give unanimity instruction for kidnapping and robbery.

ISSUES: (1) Sufficiency of evidence—kidnapping; (2) jury instructions—lesser included offense; (3) jury instructions—unanimity; (4) cumulative error; (5) ineffective assistance of counsel

HELD: Forcing victim from room-to room within one-bedroom apartment constitutes a taking or confinement within kidnapping statute’s meaning under State v. Bugs, 219 Kan. 203 (1976), and Harris’ movements were not merely incidental to the robbery. No substantive basis for Harris’ claim that his two-hour holding of the victim was part of one continuous effort to get the victim’s money. Pursuant to State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195 (2012), panel correctly rejected Harris’ alternative means claim that evidence failed to show he held victim with intent to facilitate flight.

State conceded a lesser included instruction was factually and legally appropriate, but panel correctly found no clear error on facts in this case.

Unanimity instruction on the kidnapping count would not have been appropriate because all of Harris’ actions were part of one unitary conduct. And no unanimity instruction was necessary on robbery count because State elected one of the two acts that could separately constitute the alleged robbery.

No reversal on cumulative effect of district court’s error of instructing on criminal restraint as an alternative crime rather than a lesser included offense, and omitting the specific crime the kidnapping was meant to facilitate.

Van Cleave court found counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the charging document within 14 days after trial deprived Harris of the more-strict standard of review under State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728 (1990), but no prejudice occurred under the “post-Hall” common-sense rule. Panel affirmed on the prejudice prong, applying State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773 (2016), which overruled Hall. But issue for appellate review was not the charging document’s sufficiency but whether Harris’ opportunity for a hearing under the pre-Hall standard was squandered. Following Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 (2003), the common-sense rule applies and record shows Harris suffered no prejudice.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp 21-5408, -5408(a), -5408(a)(2), -5420(a), 22-3201(b) -3414(3), -3502; K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-261 

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

CONSUMER PROTECTIONCONTRACTSFORUM SELECTION
KANSAS CITY GRILL CLEANERS, LLC V. THE BBQ CLEANER, LLC
JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT
REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 118,687
DECEMBER 13, 2019

FACTS: Kansas City Grill Cleaners, LLC, and The BBQ Cleaner, LLC entered a contract for the purchase of outdoor grill cleaning equipment and supplies. The purchase agreement contained choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses which established that venue would exist only in Bergen County, New Jersey. In August 2016, KC Grill filed suit in Johnson County against BBQ Cleaner alleging a deceptive trade practice claim under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Relying on the forum-selection clause, BBQ Cleaner filed a motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion, citing the forum-selection clause. KC Grill appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Enforcement of forum-selection clause

HELD: A forum-selection clause is unenforceable if the party resisting it shows that enforcement would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The KCPA contains a venue statute which is designed to allow Kansas consumers with certain prerogatives in prosecuting a consumer protection claim. A plain reading of that statute makes it clear the legislature intended to allow Kansas consumers to file suit against non-resident companies in Kansas. The district court erred when it found the forum-selection clause in this contract was enforceable.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 50-623(b), -625, -625(a), -625(c), -638(b)

DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION
MOLINA V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
FORD DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED
NO. 119,766
DECEMBER 13, 2019

FACTS: Deputy Scott stopped Molina after he was seen failing to maintain a single lane and changing lanes without signaling. After the stop, the officer noticed that Molina smelled like alcohol and had slurred speech. Molina failed a series of field sobriety tests and his preliminary breath test. Molina was arrested and transported to the sheriff's office, where personnel administered the Intoxilyzer 9000 breath test after waiting the prescribed 20 minutes. Molina's sample showed an alcohol level far exceeding the allowable amount, and Molina was given notice that his driving privileges were being suspended. Molina requested an administrative hearing and then review by the district court, claiming that Deputy Scott failed to substantially comply with the Intoxilyzer testing protocol. At the district court hearing, Molina's counsel failed to subpoena Deputy Scott, so there was no testimony regarding compliance with the testing protocol. Nevertheless, Molina argued that his Intoxilyzer results were flawed because Deputy Scott did not wait the required 20 minutes before administering the test. The district court disagreed, and Molina appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Compliance with testing procedure

HELD: Substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the 20-minute wait requirement. There is absolutely no evidence to support Molina's claim that his waiting period was improperly cut short. Molina failed to meet his burden to prove error. Moreover, substantial evidence proves that more than 20 minutes elapsed from the start of the waiting period to when Molina actually performed the test. The district court correctly rejected Molina's claims to the contrary.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-259(a), -1020(h)(2)(F), -1020(q), 77-603(a), -621(a)(1), -621(c)(7), -621(d)

Tags:  attorneys  constitutional law  consumer protection  contracts  criminal law  driver's license suspension  evidence  Ford District Court  forum selection  Johnson District Court  jury instructions  Lyon District Court  statutes  Weekly20191217 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)