• Home
  • Supreme Court release for January 25, 2019

Supreme Court release for January 25, 2019

25 Jan 2019 12:05 PM | Amanda Kohlman (Administrator)

The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions today: 

Appeal No. 118,944: In the Matter of Tammie E. Kurth

Archived oral argument video

The Supreme Court suspended Kurth, of Liberal, from the practice of law for six months for multiple violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. The court adopted the disciplinary hearing panel's findings of facts and conclusions of law with respect to Kurth's rules violations. Kurth's violations related to her failure to represent clients with reasonable diligence and promptness, keep her clients informed of the status of the matter she was representing them in, charge reasonable fees, and take the necessary steps to protect her clients' interests when terminating representation.

Appeal No. 119,909: In the Matter of Timothy J. Grillot

Archived oral argument video 

Grillot, of Independence, was disbarred from the practice of law for violating the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct governing competence, diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping property, termination of representation, candor toward tribunal, commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Appeal No. 115,629: State of Kansas v. James Lee Jamerson

Archived oral argument video

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of Shawnee County District Court and remanded with directions for resentencing. In this multiconviction case, Jamerson challenged his resentencing after the district court granted his motion to correct an illegal sentence because of an incorrect criminal history score, but then also modified the duration and concurrent nature of one of his legal, nonbase sentences. The court held that the district court could only correct the illegal sentence. When correcting an illegal sentence, the district court's authority in setting the length of the new prison term includes determining whether the corrected sentence will run consecutive to, or concurrent with, the other sentences. Accordingly, the court affirmed the correction of the illegal sentence and vacated the modification to the legal sentence. Two justices wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. They agreed that the district court had authority to correct the illegality, but disagreed that correcting the illegality extended to the consecutive or concurrent nature of the sentence.

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software