Appeal No. 123,807:  State of Kansas v. Tyler D. Deck

Appeal No. 123,807 archived oral argument

The Supreme Court affirmed Deck's sentence. In a per curiam decision, the Court rejected Deck's claim that the Sedgwick County District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to sentence him on his attempted unintentional second-degree murder conviction because the crime he pleaded guilty to was logically impossible to commit. The Court reasoned that a motion to correct an illegal sentence, his chosen procedural vehicle, that alleged a defect in the charging document fell into the collateral attack category as inappropriate for courts to reverse a conviction that had become a final judgment, and therefore declined to address the claim's merit. 

Appeal No. 125,505: State v. Turner

Summary calendar; no archived oral argument

Appeal No. 121,914: State of Kansas v. Joseph P. Lowry

Appeal No. 121,914 archived oral argument

 In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Marla Luckert, the Supreme Court affirmed Lowry's convictions for first-degree felony murder for his role in the murders of three people in a Topeka home. The Court rejected Lowry's argument that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the option to convict of voluntary manslaughter instead of first-degree murder because the facts of the case did not support his contention that there was a sudden and unforeseen quarrel that precipitated the killing. The Court rejected Lowry's claim that the trial court should not have allowed the jury to see crime scene and autopsy photographs because the photographs served an evidentiary purpose and did not serve solely to inflame the jury. The Court also rejected Lowry's claim that a jury instruction regarding compulsion as a defense to the nonhomicide crimes was not factually appropriate because the evidence did not show a continuous compulsion that would warrant such instruction and also showed Lowry had opportunities to escape the situation. Finally, the Court found no cumulative error because there were no errors to accumulate.

Case No. 125,500: In the Matter of Mitchell J. Spencer

Case No. 125,500 archived oral argument

The Supreme Court ordered published censure for Spencer's violations of KRPC 8.4(c) and 8.4(g). Spencer was licensed to practice law in Kansas in September 2017. Two years later, Spencer violated K.S.A. 8-1605, a class C misdemeanor. It is a traffic law concerning the duty of a driver upon damaging unattended vehicle or other property. At the time, Spencer was a Sumner County Attorney's Office employee. The city prosecutor dismissed the citation and referred the case to the Kansas Attorney General's Office. Before the AG's Office filed the case, Spencer paid for the vehicular damages his violation of K.S.A. 8-1605 caused. He also entered into a diversion agreement and completed it. The case was dismissed with prejudice. Counsel for Spencer and the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator jointly recommended more than published censure because of Spencer's status as a prosecutor at the time of misconduct. But the court held that prosecutors are only subject to a higher standard while acting in the scope of their official prosecutorial duties. As Spencer's misconduct did not occur within the scope of his official duties, the rules of professional conduct imposed no heightened duty of ethical conduct on him. Clear and convincing evidence established that Spencer's conduct adversely, but not seriously, reflected on his fitness to practice law.

Appeal No. 123,637: State of Kansas v. Dustin William Eugene Bilbrey

Appeal No. 123,637 archived oral argument

Appeal No. 123,684: Nancy Granados v. John Wilson and Key Insurance Company

Appeal No. 123,684 archived oral argument

 Following a fatal car crash, the Wyandotte County District Court entered judgment against Wilson in a wrongful-death suit brought by the deceased's widow, Granados. To collect on that judgment, Granados filed a garnishment action seeking payment from Key Insurance Company under the automobile liability insurance policy it had issued Wilson. The district court entered judgment in favor of Granados for $3,481,901.29, but a panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, finding Key Insurance Company's conduct had not caused the judgment against Wilson. In a unanimous decision written by Justice K.J. Wall, with Justice Dan Biles not participating, the Court clarified that under decades of Supreme Court precedent, insurers have an implied contractual duty to act in good faith and with reasonable care under the circumstances when handling claims against its insureds. The Court held the Court of Appeals panel erred by attempting to define the insurer's legal duty in a more fact-specific, particularized manner—in this instance, by attempting to define the contours of an insurer's purported legal duty to settle under Kansas law. However, after determining Granados had not met her burden of showing that Key Insurance Company's bad faith and negligence had caused the judgment against Wilson, the court affirmed the panel's decision, albeit under a different rationale, and remanded the case to the district court with directions to enter judgment in favor of Key Insurance Company.

Appeal No. 120,566: State of Kansas v. Justin Burke Eckert

Appeal No. 120,566 archived oral argument

The Supreme Court heard this case on a special evening docket October 3 in Parsons.

Case No. 125,622: In the Matter of Isaac Henry Marks Sr.

Case No. 125,622 archived oral argument

Marks was admitted to practice law in Kansas in October 1987. He is also a licensed attorney in Maryland and the District of Columbia. This case stems from disciplinary actions against Marks for his conduct while working as a trustee in the District of Columbia in 2018. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended his law license for one year on June 24, 2021. He failed to notify the Maryland bar of the District of Columbia discipline. This led to indefinite suspension of his Maryland license on November 15, 2021, for a minimum of one year.

In the Kansas discipline proceeding, Marks and the Disciplinary Administrator's office entered into a summary submission agreement in which he admitted he violated various D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and corresponding Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, including Supreme Court Rule 221(b) (discipline imposed in another jurisdiction).

 Upon adopting the findings and conclusions in the parties' summary submission, the Supreme Court ordered a one-year suspension to run concurrently with his Maryland suspension. The Court also ordered Marks show his Maryland and District of Columbia law licenses are reinstated as a condition of reinstatement of his Kansas license.

Appeal No. 122,810: Kelly Roe v. Phillips County Hospital

Appeal No. 122,810 archived oral argument

Appeal No. 123,096: State of Kansas v. Barbara Marie Frantz

Appeal No. 123,096 archived oral argument

The Supreme Court affirmed Frantz's Leavenworth County District Court conviction for first-degree premeditated murder. Her conviction arose out of the 2017 shooting death of her estranged husband outside an apartment complex in the city of Leavenworth. Frantz defended herself at trial by suggesting her son was responsible for the murder.

Through counsel, Frantz raised several claims of error on appeal, including the district court erred by denying her motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case; there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction; and the district court violated her confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by limiting her cross-examination of her son. Representing herself, Frantz also raised numerous other claims of error.

In an opinion written by Justice K.J. Wall, the Supreme Court held the district court did not err by denying Frantz's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence. The Court recognized that under Kansas caselaw, Frantz likely waived any claim of error regarding the denial of that motion because she presented evidence in her defense that refuted elements of the State's case. Because neither party had addressed the potential waiver on appeal, the Court reached the merits of Frantz's claim and held the State presented sufficient evidence of Frantz's guilt in its case-in-chief and so she was not entitled to a judgment of acquittal. Likewise, the Court held there was sufficient evidence to support Frantz's conviction when looking at the evidence as a whole. The Court also held that while the district court prevented Frantz from asking her son certain questions while he was testifying, those court-imposed limitations did not violate Frantz's right of confrontation because they complied with Kansas evidentiary rules and did not otherwise prevent Frantz from effectively cross-examining her son. Finally, the Court rejected all claims of error Frantz had raised on her own.

Appeal No. 124,737: State of Kansas v. Meka Richardson

Summary calendar; no archived oral argument

Case No. 125,417: In the Matter of Troy J. Leavitt

Case No. 125,417 archived oral argument

In an original proceeding in attorney discipline, Leavitt stipulated to violations of Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. 331) (diligence), 1.4 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. 332) (communication), 8.2 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. 432) (judicial and legal officials), and 8.3 (2022 Kan. S. Ct. R. 433) (reporting professional misconduct). The Supreme Court ordered Leavitt's license to practice law be suspended for one year and his suspension be stayed pending successful participation in and completion of a probation period of one year beginning December 9, 2022.

Appeal No. 122,764: State of Kansas v. Harold Glen Ford Jr.

Appeal No. 122,764 archived oral argument

In 1993, Ford pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and related charges in Johnson County District Court. His convictions were vacated, and his case remanded for trial in 2016 because it was unclear whether he received a requested competency hearing before his guilty plea and a retrospective hearing was not possible. A jury found Ford guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Ford argued that his convictions should be vacated because the delay between the original charge and his 2019 trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. In an opinion written by Justice Eric Rosen, the Court affirmed Ford's convictions. It ruled Ford's constitutional right to a speedy trial detached upon his first conviction and remained so while he stood convicted. Consequently, none of the delay accumulated during that time could be considered in a speedy trial analysis. Because Ford made no argument the delay that accumulated outside of the time, he stood convicted independently violated his speedy trial right, his appeal failed.

Appeal No. 123,077: State of Kansas v. Richard I. Moler II

Appeal No. 123,077 archived oral argument

The Supreme Court heard this case on a special evening docket October 3 in Parsons.

The Supreme Court reversed Moler's two counts of violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act, which makes it a crime for a person subject to its provisions to fail to register "any vehicle owned or operated by the offender, or any vehicle the offender regularly drives, either for personal use or in the course of employment." K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-4903(a) (criminalizing registered offender's noncompliance with the act's provisions); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-4907(a)(12) (automobile registration requirement).