Frederick N. Six

Matthew Cullen pled guilty to attempted rape as part of a plea agreement in which he and the state jointly recommended an upward durational departure sentence of 118 months imprisonment, based on the victim's particular vulnerability due to age, along with 60 months of extended postrelease supervision. The trial court imposed the recommended sentence. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court addressed whether the upward departure sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey and State v. Gould even though Cullen had recommended it, and whether the extended postrelease supervision was unconstitutional. The court held that the departure sentence was unconstitutional and void because K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 21-4716 is facially invalid under Apprendi and Gould, as it permits a judge to increase a sentence beyond the statutory maximum based on findings made by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and this defect could not be cured by the defendant's plea or agreement. The court affirmed the extended postrelease supervision term, concluding it did not offend Apprendi or Gould.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Walker, the defendant pled guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child, a sexually violent crime under Kansas law, and received a presumptive prison term plus an extended 60-month postrelease supervision period based on the nature of the offense. The Court of Appeals vacated the extended supervision term, finding it unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey and State v. Gould, but the Kansas Supreme Court granted review and reversed that decision. The court held that the extended supervision did not violate Apprendi or Gould because Walker's guilty plea established the statutory classification of the crime as sexually violent, providing the necessary basis without any additional judicial fact-finding. This followed the analysis from the related case of State v. Anthony, where conviction of the same offense justified the extension, and the court distinguished precedents involving upward durational departures under different statutes.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Pruitt, Dennis Ray Pruitt pled no contest to first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated robbery after the deaths of a pregnant woman and her unborn child during a robbery. He received an upward durational departure sentence of 178 months for the aggravated robbery, consecutive to a life term for murder, based on findings of excessive brutality and victim vulnerability. Pruitt appealed, arguing the sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey and State v. Gould despite his plea. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the upward departure sentence was imposed under K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 21-4716, a scheme declared unconstitutional on its face because it allowed penalty increases based on facts not submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court vacated the aggravated robbery sentence and remanded for resentencing within the statutory range, noting that the ruling applies to cases not yet final when Apprendi was decided.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved McCain Foods USA, Inc. seeking to recover on a default judgment against Allen Quality Foods, Inc. for unpaid amounts under a contract to process potato wedges for a USDA deal, by pursuing claims under the Kansas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act against Glen Shore, an officer and director of Allen Foods and a related company, Central Processors, Inc. The trial court found that certain transfers of funds from the companies to Shore were made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, based on multiple badges of fraud such as transfers after the debtor was sued, concealment of assets, and transfers of substantially all assets, and awarded McCain $124,495 plus $20,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the findings of fraud under K.S.A. 33-204 and rejecting Shore's challenges to the application of the statute and his unpreserved good-faith defense under K.S.A. 33-208(a). The court noted that issues must be raised in the pretrial order to be considered and that the evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard. The ruling focused solely on the actual-intent claim after a bench trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Kenneth P. Seck, who had been indefinitely suspended from practicing law in Kansas, and was convicted of false impersonation under K.S.A. 21-3824 after sending a demand letter on attorney letterhead to a newspaper publisher regarding alleged harm to his sister. Seck appealed his misdemeanor conviction, contending that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it left unclear what conduct was prohibited for a suspended attorney. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the statute clearly criminalizes representing oneself as licensed to practice law when one is not and that no constitutionally protected activity is curtailed. The court also rejected Seck's additional claims for lack of supporting argument or authority.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Richard Kendall's appeal of his convictions for felony driving under the influence (DUI), driving with a suspended license, and refusing a preliminary breath test, as well as his sentence. The court addressed whether the trial court erred in responding to a jury question about the definition of "driving," in admitting an officer's opinion testimony on Kendall's intoxication, and whether using prior DUI convictions to classify the offense as a felony violated Apprendi v. New Jersey. The court determined that any error in the jury instruction response was harmless, the officer's testimony was properly admitted, and the prior convictions could be used without a jury finding under the Apprendi exception for prior convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed Kendall's convictions and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Kluin v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., a Kansas resident sued the California-based motorcycle manufacturer in Kansas state court for breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act after purchasing a Suzuki motorcycle from an independent Oklahoma dealer and receiving repairs there. Suzuki moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(2) and improper venue. The district court granted the motion, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the long-arm statute did not confer jurisdiction because Suzuki had no offices, agents, direct sales, or other sufficient minimum contacts in Kansas, title to products passed outside the state to independent dealers, and any Kansas contacts were unilateral actions by the plaintiff such as viewing advertisements or calling the Oklahoma dealer. The court further found no consumer transaction occurred in Kansas to support the KCPA claim and no contract or warranty was entered into or performed in the state under K.S.A. 60-308(b)(5).

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Garcia, the defendant appealed his consecutive prison sentences for aggravated battery and incitement to riot after a no-contest plea, challenging the district court's use of a gang-related finding under K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 21-4704a(k) to impose prison rather than the presumptive probation called for by the sentencing guidelines. The Kansas Supreme Court held that Apprendi v. New Jersey does not require the gang-related fact to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, because such a finding does not increase the penalty beyond the statutory maximum. The court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing on the ground that the district court had failed to make the specific on-the-record findings required by the statute regarding the crimes' gang connection and the defendant's intent.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Moore, the defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and kidnapping after evidence showed he took a 6-year-old girl into his home, exposed himself, and engaged in sexual contact, with additional testimony about a videotape of children and his prior similar convictions from 1988. The Kansas Supreme Court addressed claims of error in the trial court's response to a jury question, admission of prior crimes evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, sufficiency of evidence, and sentencing. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible errors in the proceedings and holding that doubling the sentence under the persistent sex offender statute did not violate Apprendi. However, it vacated the sentence sua sponte due to improper use of a prior conviction to enhance the criminal history score and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a deputy sheriff, Michael Tyler, who was injured on duty in a collision with an uninsured driver while operating a county patrol car; after obtaining a $450,000 judgment against the driver, Tyler sought uninsured motorist benefits from the county's insurer, Employers Mutual Casualty Company (EMC), which denied coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to Tyler, and on appeal the Kansas Supreme Court held that EMC's policy provided UM coverage because the county had voluntarily purchased and paid premiums for such coverage on the specific patrol car listed in the policy, even though government vehicles are exempt from mandatory UM requirements under Kansas law. The court affirmed Tyler's entitlement to benefits plus attorney fees and prejudgment interest but reversed and remanded to recalculate interest from the correct starting date. EMC's arguments that the policy did not cover the vehicle or that statutory exemptions applied were rejected in favor of enforcing the contractual terms. The underlying dispute also addressed offsets from Tyler's workers' compensation recovery.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Douglas, the defendant was retried and convicted of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated robbery after the first jury deadlocked. On appeal, Douglas challenged the convictions and hard-50 sentences on multiple grounds, including an alleged Batson violation in jury selection, refusal to instruct on lesser included offenses, prosecutorial misconduct, admission of prior-crimes evidence, sufficiency of the evidence for premeditation, the constitutionality of Kansas's hard-50 sentencing scheme under Apprendi, and the trial court's weighing of aggravating versus mitigating factors. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the record, found no reversible error on any issue, and affirmed the convictions and consecutive hard-50 sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Dean, Leroy Dean was convicted by a jury of forgery after allegedly taking and cashing a check from another inmate, Hershel Ritchie, following their release from prison; he was acquitted of robbery but sentenced to 14 months in prison due to being on post-release supervision at the time of the offense. Dean appealed, raising three issues: whether the State violated Batson v. Kentucky by using a peremptory strike to remove an African-American juror based on observed eye contact with the defendant; whether the evidence was sufficient to support the forgery conviction; and whether the prison sentence rather than probation violated Apprendi v. New Jersey by relying on a fact not found by the jury. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the State's explanation for the strike was race-neutral and lacked any discriminatory pattern, that the evidence of forgery was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and that Apprendi did not apply because the enhanced sentence under K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 21-4603d(f) was not considered a departure from the presumptive sentence.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case is David Moncla's third appeal from his first-degree murder conviction, focusing on the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial under K.S.A. 22-3501 based on newly discovered evidence. Moncla submitted affidavits from two prison inmates alleging that another individual, Kevin Robertson, had admitted involvement in the victim's murder with a hammer. After an evidentiary hearing where the inmates testified, the district court again denied the motion, citing inconsistencies in the new testimony, conflicts with trial evidence such as blood spatter on Moncla's jeans, and the strength of the original case. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence insufficient to warrant a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

Ronald Graham was convicted after a bench trial of possession of methamphetamine and marijuana, with his crimes enhanced to severity level 1 based on two prior convictions, resulting in a 150-month sentence. He appealed, claiming an illegal car search, improper allowance of his waiver of counsel, insufficient evidence for conviction, and an unconstitutional sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey because prior convictions were not proven to a jury. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence. It reasoned that the marijuana was in plain view on the car floorboard, supporting the search; the waiver of counsel was valid with advisory counsel present; evidence was sufficient; and Apprendi does not require jury proof of prior convictions used to enhance a sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Arthur Albright's appeal of his conviction for premeditated first-degree murder and his hard 40 sentence in Kansas state court. Albright raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, improper admission of evidence regarding his prior bad acts, denial of his motion to recall the jury, and the constitutionality of his sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey as well as K.S.A. 22-3220 regarding the defense of lack of mental state. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecutor did not commit reversible misconduct, the trial court did not abuse its discretion on evidentiary or jury issues, the hard 40 sentence was constitutional under controlling precedent, and the constitutional challenge to the mental state statute was not properly before the court because it was not raised at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant William Anthony's challenge to the extension of his postrelease supervision from 36 to 60 months after his conviction for aggravated indecent liberties with a child, arguing it was an unconstitutional upward departure under Apprendi v. New Jersey and State v. Gould. The court also considered sua sponte whether his prison sentence was illegal. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the extension did not violate Apprendi or Gould because the jury's conviction for a statutorily defined sexually violent crime provided the substantial and compelling reason for the departure, and the fact of the conviction itself supported the finding. However, the court found the 92-month prison sentence illegal as it was based on the sentencing guidelines grid in effect at sentencing rather than at the time of the offense, and remanded for resentencing under the correct guidelines.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract claim by chiropractor Mark Beck against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, alleging that two provider contracts (a competitive allowance program contract and a Kansas Chiropractor Network contract) violated K.S.A. 40-2,101, a mandated-provider statute requiring freedom of choice for insureds regarding health care practitioners. A jury awarded Beck over $1.6 million in damages, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the contracts did not violate the statute. The court reasoned that the statute's plain language and legislative history showed it was intended to protect insureds' ability to select providers rather than to regulate or prohibit specific reimbursement terms, discounts, or most-favored-nation clauses in provider agreements. The court therefore did not reach Blue Cross's alternative arguments regarding disparate impact and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the insurer.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved Tod Alan Pabst's appeal from his second conviction for first-degree premeditated murder of his fiancée following a retrial after an earlier reversal due to prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence, holding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on premeditation using the standard PIK definition and on voluntary intoxication without additional language, that the prosecutor's closing remarks did not constitute reversible misconduct, that sufficient evidence supported the verdict, and that admission of Pabst's prior trial testimony was not erroneous. The court reasoned that the instructions accurately stated the law without misleading the jury and that any potential issues did not affect the fairness of the trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. McClennon, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of rape and other crimes, and the district court imposed an upward durational departure sentence on one rape conviction by finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the crime involved extreme sexual violence and that the defendant was a predatory sex offender. The Court of Appeals vacated the departure sentence, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that decision upon review. The court held that the sentencing scheme under K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 21-4716, which permits a judge to increase a sentence beyond the statutory maximum based on such findings, violates the defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. This ruling followed from Apprendi v. New Jersey, which requires any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases the penalty to be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as applied in the prior Kansas case State v. Gould. The case was remanded for resentencing within the presumptive range.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Travis Hitt, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit aggravated battery in Kansas and challenged the use of his prior juvenile adjudications in calculating his criminal history score under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act. Hitt argued for the first time on appeal that these adjudications should not count because they arose from proceedings without a jury trial right, and under Apprendi v. New Jersey they must be charged in the indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt to increase his sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court and Court of Appeals, holding that the juvenile adjudications were properly included in the score and that the resulting presumptive sentence could not be challenged on appeal. The court reasoned that Apprendi expressly excepts prior convictions from its jury requirement based on their historical role in recidivism sentencing and the procedural protections attached to them, and that juvenile adjudications fall within this exception despite lacking jury trials.

criminal lawprocedure