• Home
  • Supreme Court releases for July 12, 2019

Supreme Court releases for July 12, 2019

12 Jul 2019 2:41 PM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions today: 

Appeal No. 114,726: State of Kansas v. Sameli G. Roberts

Summary calendar; no oral argument

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of Roberts' motion for post-conviction relief from his Sedgwick County convictions for aggravated burglary, criminal restraint, kidnapping, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, and four counts of aggravated robbery. The court held the district court did not violate Robert's due process rights when it considered the State's response to Robert's motion without appointing counsel to represent Roberts because viewing the State's response was not the functional equivalent of a hearing. The court also held Roberts' motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, violation of his right to speedy trial, and violation of his right to be present at trial was procedurally barred because he had not established exceptions to the rules prohibiting untimely and successive motions.

Appeal No. 115,037: State of Kansas v. Jeffery S. Redding

Archived oral argument video

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of Redding's motion to correct an illegal sentence involving his sentences for rape and aggravated indecent liberties with a child The court held the Rice County District Court did not violate Redding's due process rights when it considered the State's response to Redding's motion without appointing counsel to represent Redding because viewing the State's response was not the functional equivalent of a hearing. The court also rejected Redding's argument that his departure sentence was illegal because the district court did not consider Redding's written allocution as a second motion to further depart to a still shorter sentence.

Appeal No. 115,129: Alcena M Dawson v. State of Kansas 

Summary calendar; no oral argument

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of Dawson's motion for post-conviction relief from his Sedgwick County conviction for rape. The court held the district court did not violate Dawson's due process rights when it considered the State's response to Dawson's motion without appointing counsel to represent Dawson because viewing the State's response was not the functional equivalent of a hearing. The court also held Dawson had not established exceptional circumstances to permit a merits review of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a successive post-conviction motion; Dawson's claims were known to him during, or immediately following, his trial, and the claims were related to those that were raised and rejected in his prior 60-1507 motions.

Appeal No. 115,149: Reginald Stewart v. State of Kansas 

Archived oral argument video

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of Stewart's motion for post-conviction relief from his Sedgwick County aggravated robbery conviction. The court held the district court did not violate Stewart's due process rights when it considered the State's response to Stewart's motion without appointing counsel to represent Stewart because viewing the State's response was not the functional equivalent of a hearing. The court also affirmed the district court's summary denial of Stewart's motion, rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claims as well as other claims that were too conclusory to review on appeal.

Appeal No. 115,662: Fidelis K. Thunko v. State of Kansas 

Summary calendar; no oral argument

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of Thuko's motion for post-conviction relief from his Sedgwick County convictions for rape and attempted rape. The court held the district court did not violate Thuko's due process rights when it considered the State's response to Thuko's motion without appointing counsel to represent Thuko because viewing the State's response was not the functional equivalent of a hearing. The court also held Thuko's motion alleging a violation of his right to be present at trial, jury instruction error, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was procedurally barred because he had not established exceptions to the rules prohibiting untimely and successive motions.

Appeal No. 115,401: Terral Breedlove v. State of Kansas 

Archived oral argument video

In Breedlove's Sedgwick County case concerning a K.S.A 60-1507 movant's right to counsel, the court held that a district court's adoption of the State's response to the motion as its findings of fact and conclusions of law was not automatically reversible error because the movant has the burden to show error. The court also held the district court did not err when it considered the State's response to Breedlove's motion without appointing counsel to represent Breedlove because viewing the State's response was not the functional equivalent of a hearing. Finally, the court held that the district court erred when it assessed a pro se, indigent 60-1507 movant $195 for filing a dispositive motion, because the movant had already filed a poverty affidavit when he filed the motion and was not required to file a second poverty affidavit when he filed his motion for a summary disposition.

Appeal No. 115,899: Edgar I. Sherwood v. State of Kansas 

Summary calendar; no oral argument 

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of Sherwood's motion for post-conviction relief from his Sedgwick County convictions for rape and aggravated criminal sodomy. The court held the district court did not violate Sherwood's due process rights when it considered the State's response to Sherwood's motion without appointing counsel to represent him because considering the State's response did not constitute a hearing. The court also concluded summary denial was appropriate because Sherwood's motion was untimely and he failed to establish a manifest injustice to excuse the delay. 

Appeal No. 116,251: Adrian M. Requena v. State of Kansas 

Summary calendar; no oral argument 

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of Requena's motion for post-conviction relief from his Butler County rape conviction. The court held the district court did not violate Requena's due process rights when it considered the State's response to Requena's motion without appointing counsel to represent him because considering the State's response did not constitute a hearing. The court also concluded summary denial was appropriate because Requena's motion was untimely and he failed to establish a manifest injustice to excuse the delay. 

Appeal No. 117,156: State of Kansas v. Derrick Laughlin 

Summary calendar; no oral argument 

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of Laughlin's motion to correct an illegal sentence and motion to withdraw his guilty plea to felony murder in Sedgwick County. The court held the district court did not violate Laughlin's due process rights when it considered the State's response to these motions without appointing counsel to represent Laughlin because considering the State's response did not constitute a hearing.

Appeal Nos. 117,368; 117,369; 117,370; 117,371; and 117,372: In the Interests of A.A.-F, M.A.-F, F.A.-F, B.C., and J.S., Minor Children 

Archived oral argument video

The Supreme Court affirmed the Geary County District Court determination that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear child in need of care proceedings concerning five children after the case had been transferred from a California court after the children's mother returned to live in Kansas. The Supreme Court concluded it did not have authority on the facts of this case to review the California trial court's decision to transfer the case to Kansas. Any challenge to the California court's decision should have occurred in California. The Supreme Court also determined the district court satisfied minimal constitutional due process protections that accorded mother an opportunity to be heard even though the Kansas district court failed to hold a statutorily required permanency hearing within the time allowed by Kansas statute.

Appeal Nos. 115,887; 115,888; and 115,889: State of Kansas v. Jacob J. McAlister Jr. 

Archived oral argument video

McAlister was sentenced in Finney County in 1996 in three separate cases. In 2015 he filed a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion challenging the legality of his sentences, arguing that his prior burglary convictions were improperly scored as person felonies when calculating his criminal history score. The Supreme Court held that the legality of a sentence is determined by the law in effect when it is pronounced, and that McAlister could not invoke later changes in the law to transform his legal sentence into an illegal one under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Appeal No. 116,530: State of Kansas v. Alcena M Dawson 

Archived oral argument video

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sedgwick County District Court's denial of Dawson's K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that Dawson's sentence, which was legal when pronounced in 1997, was not later transformed into an illegal sentence by subsequent changes in the law.

Appeal Nos. 114,432 and 115,637: State of Kansas v. Previn Tauer 

Summary calendar; no oral argument

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sedgwick County District Court's denial of Tauer's K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that Tauer's sentence, which was legal when pronounced in 1994, was not later transformed into an illegal sentence by subsequent changes in the law.

Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software