Appeal No. 119,759: State of Kansas v. Lonnie A. Davidson
Summary calendar; no oral argument
A Supreme Court majority rejected Davidson's challenge to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq. Reaffirming its holding in State v. Petersen-Beard, 304 Kan. 192, 377 P.3d 1127 (2016), that KORA is nonpunitive, the court held that mandatory lifetime postrelease registration under KORA does not constitute punishment for purposes of applying provisions of the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. Justice Melissa Standridge concurred in the result based on principles of stare decisis, noting the only change that had occurred since Petersen-Beard was decided was the composition of the court. Justice Eric Rosen dissented from the majority's decision, reiterating his longstanding opinion that KORA's registration requirements are punitive and concluding that retroactive application of the registration requirements to Davidson violated the ex post facto clause.

Appeal No. 119,796: State of Kansas v. N.R.

Appeal No. 119,796 archived oral argument

In a majority opinion, the Supreme Court today held that the Kansas Offender Registration Act's (KORA) mandatory lifetime registration provisions as applied to a registered juvenile sex offender does not constitute punishment for the purposes of applying the ex post facto clause and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The majority further held that such provisions as applied to the juvenile offender do not infringe on his due process rights under the Kansas Constitution. In 2006, N.R. was 14 years old when he was adjudicated on a rape charge. At that time, the magistrate judge ordered that he only be required to register locally as an offender for five years. However, in 2011 the Kansas Legislature amended KORA in such a way that N.R. was then required to publicly register as an offender for life. The majority rejected N.R.'s arguments that such requirements violated ex post facto, constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and violated his state constitutional due process rights.

Appeal No. 123,045: State of Kansas v. Meka Richardson

Summary calendar; no oral argument
The Supreme Court affirmed the Wyandotte County District Court's ruling denying a motion to correct illegal sentence. Richardson, who is currently serving a hard-40 sentence after she was convicted in 1992 of first-degree murder, argued that her sentence was illegal because it did not conform to K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4624. Specifically, she asserted that the jury did not unanimously convict her on a premeditation theory, which is statutorily required before a district court judge can convene a separate trial to determine the hard-40 sentence. In an opinion written by Justice Standridge, the Court unanimously held that the jury instructions and the verdict form in this case conclusively show that the jury unanimously convicted Richardson of premeditated and felony first-degree murder. The court further determined that the district court correctly construed Richardson's motion as a motion to correct an illegal sentence and not as a motion for postconviction relief under K.S.A. 60-1507.

Court of Appeals Judge Henry Green will sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear and help decide one case on the court’s September 13 docket that will take place by videoconference.

After hearing oral arguments, Judge Green will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and decision drafting.

"The Supreme Court looks forward to Judge Green hearing a case with us,” said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. “He will read the case materials, prepare for oral argument, and deliberate with the court on its decision. We thank him for helping us, especially because we know he already has a significant case load to handle."

Green was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 1993 by Gov. Joan Finney.

“It is clearly an honor to be chosen to sit with our Supreme Court,” said Green. “As a Court of Appeals judge, this has to be one of the highlights of my career.”

Judge Henry Green Jr. is a native of Leavenworth. He earned his bachelor’s degrees from Kansas State University and a law degree from the University of Kansas School of Law. After a career in private law practice and working for the federal bankruptcy court in Kansas, he was appointed to the Kansas Court of Appeals.

All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live at YouTube.com/KansasSupremeCourt.

Green will join justices by video conference at 9 a.m. Monday, September 13, to hear oral arguments in one case:

Appeal No. 120,434: State of Kansas v. Dwayne Lynn Patton

Reno County: (Petition for Review) Patton was convicted of one count of felony driving under the influence. At sentencing, the district court found this was Patton’s fourth or subsequent DUI conviction and sentenced him to 12 months in jail. The Court of Appeals affirmed Patton’s conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeals held that the 2018 Amendments to K.S.A 8-1567(i) and (j) apply to Patton’s DUI conviction even though the crime was committed in 2016. Issue on review is whether appellants precluded from bringing their claims based on res judicata and prior Kansas Supreme Court precedent.

Court of Appeals Judge Michael Buser will sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear and help decide one case on the court’s September 14 docket that will take place by videoconference.

After hearing oral arguments, Judge Buserwill join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and decision drafting.

"The Supreme Court looks forward to Judge Buser hearing a case with us,” said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. “He will read the case materials, prepare for oral argument, and deliberate with the court on its decision. We thank him for helping us, especially because we know he already has a significant caseload in to handle."

Buser was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2005 by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

“I look forward to sitting with our Supreme Court as the justices decide important legal issues that affect all Kansans," said Buser.

Buser grew up in Des Moines, Iowa, and Overland Park. After receiving undergraduate degrees from Georgetown University, he returned to Kansas to earn a law degree from the University of Kansas School of Law. He worked as a county prosecutor and corporate counsel and was in private practice before being named to the Court of Appeals in 2005.

All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live at   http://www.YouTube.com/KansasSupremeCourt.

Buser will join justices by videoconference at 9 a.m. Tuesday, September 14, to hear oral arguments in:

Appeal No. 121,815: Ronell Williams v. State of Kansas

Wyandotte County: (Petition for Review) At 14 years old, Williams was convicted of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder arising from the death of two victims. He is serving two concurrent hard life sentences. Williams brought an action under K.S.A 60-1507 challenging his hard 50 sentence as constitutionally disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the motion as untimely and successive. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the district court with specific directions to resentence Williams on the premeditated fir-degree murder convictions based on the constitutional protections cited in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460. Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Williams’ hard-50 sentence, which was imposed under a discretionary scheme and explicitly provided the opportunity for parole, ran afoul of Miller because it only held that life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crime violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments,” and 2) this Court should affirm Williams’ sentence if it finds that the hard 50 is the “functional equivalent” of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Malone will sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear and help decide one case on the court’s September 15 docket that will take place by videoconference.

After hearing oral arguments, Malonewill join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and decision drafting.

"The Supreme Court looks forward to Judge Malone hearing a case with us,” said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. “He will read the case materials, prepare for oral argument, and deliberate with the court on its decision. We thank him for helping us, especially because we know he already has a significant caseload in to handle."

Malone was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2003 by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

“It's always a rewarding experience to hear a case with the Supreme Court and be a part of the final decision-making process in the Kansas judicial branch," said Malone.

Malone, a Wichita native, received a bachelor's degree from Newman University in Wichita and a law degree from Washburn University School of Law. After a 12-year career in private practice in Wichita, he was elected district judge in Sedgwick County in 1990. He was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2003.

All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live at YouTube.com/KansasSupremeCourt.

Malone will join justices by video conference at 9 a.m. Wednesday, September 15, to hear oral arguments in: 

Appeal No. 121,447: Catherine Roll, a disabled person, by and through her co-guardians Teresa Roll Kerwick and Mary Ann Burns v. Laura Howard, Secretary of the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services, and Mike Dixon, Superintendent of the Parsons State Hospital and Training Center

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Roll is a patient at Parsons State Hospital, where she has been treated for decades for an intellectual disability and schizophrenia. In 2016, the Department of Aging and Disability Services, with Parsons, indicated the intent to transfer Roll to a more integrated community-based program. Roll’s guardians sought a permanent injunction to prevent the transfer, alleging the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Social Security Act prevented the Department from transferring her without her consent.

The district court found that the Department had shown that the treatment available at a community-based program was appropriate to meet Roll’s needs. The court also found that the ADA nor SSA prevented transferring her to a different program. The district court and the Court of Appeals upheld the transfer. Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied rules of statutory interpretation concerning the ADA and the SSA; and 2) the record contradicted the Court of Appeals and the district court’s conclusions that Roll was not in “Active Treatment.”

Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Hill will sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear and help decide one case on the court’s September 17 docket that will take place by videoconference.

After hearing oral arguments, Judge Hill  will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and decision drafting.

"The Supreme Court looks forward to Judge Hill hearing a case with us,” said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. “He will read the case materials, prepare for oral argument, and deliberate with the court on its decision. We thank him for helping us, especially because we know he already has a significant caseload."

Hill was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2003 by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.

“I am grateful to the chief justice and the Supreme Court for giving me an opportunity to sit with the court,” said Hill. “It is an honor for any judge to be asked. Also, it is a challenge. At this level, there are no easy cases.”

Judge Stephen Hill grew up in Wichita but spent most of his legal career as a lawyer, county attorney, and judge in the 6th Judicial District. He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Kansas and a law degree from Washburn University School of Law. After serving 22 years as a district court judge, he was named to the Kansas Court of Appeals.

All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast at   YouTube.com/KansasSupremeCourt.

Hill will join justices by video conference at 1:30 p.m. Friday, September 17, to hear oral arguments in:

Appeal No. 121,220: State of Kansas v. Monroe Eugene Reed-Chism

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) A jury convicted Reed-Chism of knowingly committing aggravated battery and sentenced him to 13 months’ imprisonment followed by 12 months’ post release supervision. On appeal, Reed-Chism challenged the jury instruction, prosecutor error, and cumulative error. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. The issues on review are whether: 1) the trail court erred by not instructing the jury on reckless aggravated battery as a lesser included offense; 2) the prosecutor committed reversible error by misstating the evidence during closing arguments; and 3) cumulative error denied Reed-Chism a fair trial.

Appeal No. 117,216: State of Kansas v. Bruce T. Shockley

Appeal No. 117,216 archived oral argument

The Supreme Court affirmed the Wyandotte County District Court’s decision to deny Shockley's trial motion requesting discharge from prosecution, finding there was no violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial. Shockley appealed on a theory of insufficient evidence. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions.

Appeal No. 120,472: University of Kansas Hospital Authority v. Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County and City of Ottawa

Appeal No. 120,472 archived oral argument

The Supreme Court reversed the Wyandotte County District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the University of Kansas Hospital Authority (KUHA) and against the City of Ottawa. KUHA sought payment of over $71,000 in unpaid medical expenses for a patient who suffered extensive injuries after crashing his car in Franklin County following a high-speed car chase involving Ottawa police officers and Franklin County sheriff's deputies. KUHA claimed that pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4612(a), both the City and Franklin County had custody over the patient such that they were liable for these expenses. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of KUHA against the City and in favor of Franklin County against KUHA. It reasoned that the Franklin County deputies were not involved in the chase and did not observe the patient commit any felonies. On the other hand, the court found that Ottawa police officers effectively had custody over the patient when the decision to obtain medical treatment was made. This was because Ottawa police officers would have been required to arrest the patient after the chase pursuant to K.S.A. 8-2104—because of the patient's fleeing and eluding those officers.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that Franklin County did not have custody over the patient. However, it reversed the district court's entry of summary judgment against the City because it found that there were not enough facts to determine whether a stop pursuant to K.S.A. 8-2104 occurred, which the panel claimed would have triggered a mandatory arrest resulting in custody for the purposes of K.S.A. 22-4612(a). The panel remanded the matter with instructions to further develop the record as to that point. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the panel's reversal of summary judgment against the City. However, it concluded that based on the facts of the case, the City never had custody of the patient within the meaning of K.S.A. 22-4612(a) and was accordingly not liable for the patient's medical costs. The court also found that K.S.A. 8-2104 was inapplicable in determining whether the City had custody of the patient.

Kansas Supreme Court docket for September 13-17, 2021

The cases summarized below are on the Kansas Supreme Court September 13–17 docket. All cases will be heard by videoconference and livestreamed on the Kansas Supreme Court YouTube channel.

This docket differs from in-person oral arguments in the Supreme Court courtroom. Instead of hearing cases back-to-back, the court will hear cases at 9 a.m., 11 a.m., and 1:30 p.m., with a recess after each.

9 a.m. • Monday, September 13

Appeal No. 120,434: State of Kansas v. Dwayne Lynn Patton

Reno County: (Petition for Review) Patton was convicted of one count of felony driving under the influence. At sentencing, the district court found this was Patton’s fourth or subsequent DUI conviction and sentenced him to 12 months in jail. The Court of Appeals affirmed Patton’s conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeals held that the 2018 Amendments to K.S.A 8-1567(i) and (j) apply to Patton’s DUI conviction even though the crime was committed in 2016. Issue on review is whether appellants precluded from bringing their claims based on res judicata and prior Kansas Supreme Court precedent.

Appeal No. 122,046: State of Kansas v. Jessica Lynn Myers

Johnson County: (Petition for Review) Myers was charged with felony driving under the influence, third offense. Myers waived her preliminary hearing and pled not guilty and moved to strike her two prior Missouri convictions for driving while intoxicated from being used to elevate her current DUI charge to a felony. The district court granted Myers’ motion, and the State timely filed this interlocutory appeal. The State’s issue on review is whether the 2018 amendments to K.S.A 8-1567 permit a district court to consider, for purposes of enhancing a present DUI offense, prior driving the influence convictions from Missouri. In a cross petition for review, Myers’ issues are whether the Court of Appeals erred by finding that it had jurisdiction to consider the State’s claim under K.S.A 22-3603, and if the Court of Appeals correctly held that the district court properly followed the plan and unambiguous language of K.S.A. 8-1567.

11 a.m. • Monday, September 13

Appeal No. 121,765: First Security Bank v. David Buehne and Linsay Buehne,et al.

Meade County: (Petition for Review) First Security Bank filed this foreclosure action against David and Linsay Buehne after they defaulted on a commercial promissory note in the principal amount of $323,000. The Buehnes responded to the foreclosure petition by alleging that the Bank’s claim is barred by the five-year statute of limitations set forth is K.S.A. 60-511. The Bank asserted that the Buehnes had waived their right to assert the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense based on the express terms of the commercial promissory note. The district court entered a final judgement of foreclosure in favor of the Bank and against the Buehnes. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred in finding the advance waiver of the statute of limitations was not void against public policy; and 2) the district court erred in holding the promissory note was not a payable on demand note and that the statute of limitations had not run prior to suit being filed?

1:30 p.m. • Monday, September 13

Appeal No. 121,916: State of Kansas v. Janet M. Allen

Clay County: (Petition for Review) A jury convicted Allen of forgery, felony theft, and misdemeanor theft. The State seeks review of a Court of Appeals decision reversing Allen’s convictions and ordering the charges be dismissed based on a violation of her right to be present at a critical stage and on a violation of her statutory speedy trial rights. Issues on review are whether: 1) due process requires a formal hearing on every request for a continuance that would extend a trial beyond its statutory speedy trial date; 2) the Court of Appeals should have remanded for an evidentiary hearing instead of dismissing the convictions, even if a hearing was necessary; and 3) Allen preserved her statutory speedy trial claim for appeal.

9 a.m. • September 14

Appeal No. 121,815: Ronell Williams v. State of Kansas

Wyandotte County: (Petition for Review) At 14 years old, Williams was convicted of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder arising from the death of two victims. He is serving two concurrent hard life sentences. Williams brought an action under K.S.A 60-1507 challenging his hard 50 sentence as constitutionally disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. The district court dismissed the motion as untimely and successive. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the district court with specific directions to resentence Williams on the premeditated fir-degree murder convictions based on the constitutional protections cited in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460. Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Williams’ hard-50 sentence, which was imposed under a discretionary scheme and explicitly provided the opportunity for parole, ran afoul of Miller because it only held that life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crime violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments,” and 2) this Court should affirm Williams’ sentence if it finds that the hard 50 is the “functional equivalent” of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

11 a.m. • Tuesday, September 14

Appeal No. 120,329: Dawn Herington, individually, and as mother and next friend of B.D.J.L., minor child and Heir-at-Law of Troy Lanning II, Deceased, and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Troy Lanning II, Deceased v. City of Wichita and City of Wichita Police Department Officer Randy Williamson, individually

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Wichita Police Officer Randy Williamson fatally shot Lanning after pursuing him in a high-speed car chase and then on foot. Herington filed an action for damages against Williamson and the City of Wichita in the United States’ District Court for the District of Kansas alleging violations of Lanning’s civil rights under federal law and several state law tort claims. The federal district court granted summary judgement to Williamson on the federal claims based on qualified immunity and to the city on the federal claims based on several other grounds going to their merits. The district court dismissed the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction without ruling on their merits. Herington refiled the state claims in Sedgwick County District Court in this case. The district court granted summary judgement to Williamson and the City because those claims had been asserted in the federal action and were later dismissed without any consideration of their validity. The Court of Appeals held the district court properly applied Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc., 263 Kan. 388, 403-04, 949 P.2d 602 (1997) and Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92, 223 P.3d 786 (2010) in entering judgement for the defendants based on res judicata. Issue on review is whether appellants are precluded from bringing their claims based on res judicata and prior Kansas Supreme Court precedent.

1:30 p.m. • Tuesday, September 14

Appeal No. 123,855: In the matter of David Phillip Leon

Original Proceeding related to Attorney Discipline: Leon was admitted to the practice of law in April 1993. Leon’s ethical issues are related to accepting attorney fees for representing clients, improper fee agreements, not depositing attorney fees in a lawyer trust account, misrepresenting client communications, failure to properly represent clients, and not cooperating with the investigation by the Disciplinary Administrator’s office. The disciplinary administrator recommends that Leon be disbarred. The hearing panel recommends Leon’s license to practice law be indefinitely suspended. Leon requests he be allowed to continue to practice law subject to his proposed plan of probation.

Appeal No. 123,818: In the matter of Brent L. Winterberg

Original Proceeding Related to Attorney Discipline: Winterberg was admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in October 1993, the same year he was licensed in Missouri. In 2018, Winterberg mishandled and mismanaged a post judgment qualified Domestic Relations Order in a divorce action that resulted in a substantial loss to his client. The disciplinary administrator recommends that Winterberg’s license to practice law be suspended for 90 days. Both the hearing panel and respondent agreed with the recommended 90-day suspension.

9 a.m. • Wednesday, September 15

Appeal No. 121,447: Catherine Roll, a disabled person, by and through her co-guardians Teresa Roll Kerwick and Mary Ann Burns v. Laura Howard, Secretary of the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services, and Mike Dixon, Superintendent of the Parsons State Hospital and Training Center

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Roll is a patient at Parsons State Hospital, where she has been treated for decades for an intellectual disability and schizophrenia. In 2016, the Department of Aging and Disability Services, with Parsons, indicated the intent to transfer Roll to a more integrated community-based program. Roll’s guardians sought a permanent injunction to prevent the transfer, alleging the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Social Security Act prevented the Department from transferring her without her consent.

The district court found that the Department had shown that the treatment available at a community-based program was appropriate to meet Roll’s needs. The court also found that the ADA nor SSA prevented transferring her to a different program. The district court and the Court of Appeals upheld the transfer. Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied rules of statutory interpretation concerning the ADA and the SSA; and 2) the record contradicted the Court of Appeals and the district court’s conclusions that Roll was not in “Active Treatment.”

11 a.m. • Wednesday, September 15

Appeal No. 120,339: State of Kansas v. Geldy Gutierrez-Fuentes

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) In 2018, a jury convicted Gutierrez-Fuentes of two counts of aggravated battery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of criminal threat. It acquitted him of the lone rape charge. The district court sentenced Gutierrez-Fuentes to 82 months in prison and he appealed the conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. The issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals properly analyzed the constitutional speedy trial issue by finding that Gutierrez-Fuentes did not establish actual prejudice: 2) the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain the aggravated burglary conviction; and 3) the district court erred in applying the “language conduit” exception to the hearsay rule.

Appeal No. 118,792: State of Kansas v. Cameron Michael Tyler

Finney County: (Petition for Review) A jury found Taylor guilty of battery against a law enforcement officer, intentional criminal threat and possession of marijuana—all felony charges. The Court of Appeals reversed the marijuana conviction because the district court erred in denying Taylor’s motion to suppress the drugs as the product of an unconstitutional search and seizure. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded to the district court with directions to both suppress the marijuana and to grant Taylor a new trial on the possession charge. The issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred by not considering the wrongfully admitted marijuana in its cumulative error analysis; and 2) the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the cumulative effect of all five identified trial errors did not delay Taylor a fair trial.

1:30 p.m. • Wednesday, September 15

Appeal No. 121,676: State of Kansas v. Wesley S. Cousins

Sumner County: (Petition for Review) Cousins appeals his conviction of driving under the influence claiming the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the results of his evidentiary breath test. Cousins contends that his consent to be tested was involuntary and coerced because implied consent advisories stated that 1) Kansas law “requires” drivers to submit to testing; and 2) refusal to submit to testing may be used as evidence at trial. Cousin also claims the statutory provision allowing test refusal evidence to be used against a driver is unconstitutional.

 

The Court of Appeals found that the implied consent advisory misstated the law, so Cousins’ consent to the breath test was involuntary and the breath test violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals concluded that that the test results are admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. They also held Cousins lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statutory provision allowing test refusal evidence to be used against a driver. The issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred in applying the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule; and 2) the advisory that refusal to submit to testing may be used as evidence at trial was inaccurate and coercive.

9 a.m. • Friday, September 17

Appeal No. 122,301: State of Kansas v. Denis Antonio Alfaro- Valleda

Wyandotte County: (Criminal Appeal) Alfaro-Valleda was convicted of first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced Alfaro-Valleda to a hard 50 sentence. The issues on appeal are whether: 1) the district court erred by admitting an autopsy photograph even though the State did not introduce testimony from a coroner; 2) the prosecutor committed reversible error during closing argument by repeatedly asserting “we know” particular contested facts; 3) the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that certain out-of-court statements could not be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted; 4) placing “guilty” as the first choice on a verdict form created a powerful incentive for juries to implicitly disregard the presumption of innocence and deny a defendant a fair trial; and 5) cumulative error denied Alfaro-Valleda a fair trial.

11 a.m. • Friday, September 17

Appeal Nos. 121,682 and 121,823: State of Kansas v. J’Mario D. Roberts

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Roberts pled guilty to several felony counts in two district court cases as part global plea agreement. The district court used several municipal adjudications to increase his criminal history score but granted him probation on both cases. They later revoked those probations and ordered Roberts to serve his prison sentences.

In the Court of Appeals, Roberts argued that the district court abused its discretion by imposing his underlying sentence. He used State v. Obregon, 309 Kan. 1267, 444 P.3d 331 (2019), to argue that the State failed to meet its burden of proving Roberts’ municipal adjudications could be included in his criminal history. The Supreme Court granted review of Roberts’ criminal history issue. The issue on review is whether the Court of Appeals erred by failing to apply Obregon to his criminal history challenge.

1:30 p.m. • Friday, September 17

Appeal No. 121,220: State of Kansas v. Monroe Eugene Reed-Chism

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) A jury convicted Reed-Chism of knowingly committing aggravated battery and sentenced him to 13 months’ imprisonment followed by 12 months’ post release supervision. On appeal, Reed-Chism challenged the jury instruction, prosecutor error, and cumulative error. The Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. The issues on review are whether: 1) the trail court erred by not instructing the jury on reckless aggravated battery as a lesser included offense; 2) the prosecutor committed reversible error by misstating the evidence during closing arguments; and 3) cumulative error denied Reed-Chism a fair trial.

Appeal No. 123,708: In the matter of Mitchell Christians

Original Proceeding Related to Attorney Discipline: Christians was admitted to practice law in 1986. Christians’ ethic violations revolved around his failure to timely docket an appeal and then failure to timely file his appellate brief which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeals. Christians stipulated to the violations and indicated he does not regularly check his email and has employees who are responsible for calendaring and notifying him of deadlines. The disciplinary administrator recommends a 90-day suspension, and the hearing panel recommended a period of suspension. Christians’ recommendation was unclear but appeared to be that his license not be suspended.

Summary calendar; no oral argument

When a case does not present a new question of law, and oral argument is deemed neither helpful to the court nor essential to a fair hearing of the appeal, it is placed on the summary calendar. These cases are deemed submitted without oral argument.

Appeal No. 120,845: State of Kansas v. Jeremy L. Dailey

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Daily pled guilty to theft of air conditioning coils. The district court ordered Dailey to pay restitution in an amount equal to the cost of four condenser coils and four A-frame coils. The State agreed with Dailey’s claim that substantial competent evidence did not establish that Dailey stole the number and type of coils the district court used to calculate the restitution amount. The Court of Appeals remanded the cast to the district court for “an additional hearing to establish the factual predicates for a lawful restitution order.” The issues on review are whether: 1) the State is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment from reproving its case because it would amount to a second prosecution for the same offense after and conviction if the State previously failed to present sufficient evidence to prove an ordered amount of restitution; and 2) the Court of Appeals effectively eliminated the State’s burden to prove the amount of restitution.

Appeal No. 123,211: State of Kansas v. Robert Lewis Jackson

Shawnee County: (Criminal Appeal) Jackson was convicted in 1995 of two off-grid first degree murder charges and multiple KSGA offenses and sentenced to two consecutive life terms, one being a “hard 40”, along with a controlling consecutive guideline sentence of 251 months. Jackson claims that his “hard 40” sentence was illegal when pronounced because the State failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements of K.S.A. 21-4624. The district court denied Jackson’s motion. The issue on review is whether the district court erred in denying Jackson’s motion to correct an illegal sentence because the State failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements for imposing an enhanced life sentence.

Appeal No. 123,145: State of Kansas v. Andrew Wallace Ellington

Sedgwick County: (Criminal) Ellington pled guilty to first-degree murder and second-degree murder. The district court followed the plea agreement and imposed a sentence of 155 months’ imprisonment for second-degree murder and a consecutive hard 25 sentence for first-degree murder. Ellington filed a motion to withdraw his plea claiming excusable neglect because he was not advised by counsel that he could file a motion to withdraw his plea. The district court concluded Ellington failed to establish excusable neglect and summarily denied the motion. Issue on review is whether the district court abused its discretion in finding Ellington failed to show exceptional circumstance for consideration of his untimely motion to withdraw his post-sentencing guilty plea.

TOPEKA—The Kansas Supreme Court reappointed District Judge Sally Pokorny to a four-year term on the Judges Assistance Committee.

Her term began July 1 and will end June 30, 2025.

Pokorny serves in the 7th Judicial District, which is Douglas County.

The Judges Assistance Committee provides help to any Kansas judge in need due to mental or physical disability, or addiction. It seeks to:

• identify judges who are impaired;
• arrange intervention;
• recommend avenues of treatment;
• provide a program of peer support;
• advocate for judges who are ill and help them recognize their impairment, obtain treatment, and return to their job; and
• educate the public and attorneys about the nature of impairments and encourage early referrals and self-referrals.

Contact with judges is confidential, unless the matter is referred to the Commission on Judicial Conduct because the judge has failed or refused to address issues of concern.

Other members of the Judges Assistance Committee are:

• Ben Burgess, a retired district judge from the 18th Judicial District, which is Sedgwick County;
• District Magistrate Judge Richard Flax, who serves in Trego County in the 23rd Judicial District;
• District Judge Michael Hoelscher, who serves in the 18th Judicial District, which is Sedgwick County; and
• District Magistrate Judge Dale Snyder, who serves in Rush County in the 24th Judicial District.

TOPEKA—The Kansas Supreme Court reappointed retired Judge Patrick McAnany, formerly of the Kansas Court of Appeals, to a four-year term on the Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel.

McAnany, Overland Park, was also reappointed chair of the panel and will serve until June 30, 2025.

The Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel provides advisory opinions to judges who ask whether a future course of action would violate the Code of Judicial Conduct. All members of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Panel are retired justices or judges.

Other members of the panel are:

• J. Patrick Brazil, retired judge from the Kansas Court of Appeals
• Edward Larson, retired justice from the Kansas Supreme Court.

The advisory opinions are public and are published by the clerk of the appellate courts.