Robert L. Gernon

This case involved a landlord-tenant dispute in which the landlord obtained a court order for possession after the tenant failed to pay rent and then refused to return the tenant's personal property left on the premises without payment of past-due rent and expenses, ultimately selling some items after following statutory notice procedures. The tenant counterclaimed for conversion of her property. The trial court found the landlord had converted the property by conditioning its return on payment and awarded damages to the tenant. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that K.S.A. 58-2565(d) expressly permits a landlord to retain and dispose of such property unless the tenant redeems it by paying the amounts owed, and this rule applies equally after a forcible detainer eviction. The decision rested on the plain language of the statute and legislative history showing rejection of any requirement for a grace period allowing free removal of belongings.

property

This case involved the State's interlocutory appeal from a district court's order granting DeMarco Griffin's motion to suppress evidence in his felony marijuana possession prosecution. The court reversed the suppression ruling and remanded the case, holding that the initial vehicle stop was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances. Key facts included the car's brief stop late at night in front of an apartment building under active drug surveillance and search warrant execution, prior drug activity at the location, the occupants' failure to exit, and the driver's inconsistent statements, all of which justified the Terry stop by Sergeant Life. Once stopped, the drug dog's alert, the odor of marijuana, and the subsequent search yielding marijuana cigarettes were lawful, and the court emphasized that officers need not rule out all innocent explanations.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves William Gilkey's appeal from the summary dismissal of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in his 1997 criminal trial for aggravated assault. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the district court's findings were sufficient for appellate review and if the motion was properly dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. The court determined that the district court's findings and conclusions were inadequate under Supreme Court Rule 183(j), as they were conclusory and did not address all allegations, leading to a remand for proper findings and consideration of an evidentiary hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves William Gilkey's appeal from the trial court's summary denial of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in his underlying criminal case involving drug possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were adequate for appellate review and that the motion raised no substantial issues of fact or law requiring an evidentiary hearing. The court reasoned that many claims were abandoned on appeal or were conclusory, that counsel's decisions on witnesses and experts fell within trial strategy, that Gilkey lacked standing to challenge the search of his girlfriend, and that the same judge presided over both the original trial and the 60-1507 motion, warranting deference to the denial. It further noted that the girlfriend's alleged recantation was unsupported and that no credible basis existed to question the substance recovered as cocaine.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Winters, the defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated battery (level 4), arguing that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior violent acts to support a self-defense claim and by giving improper jury instructions on alternative charges of attempted second-degree murder and two levels of aggravated battery. The court held that the exclusion of specific instances of the victim's conduct was proper under K.S.A. 60-447, which limits such character evidence to reputation testimony or prior convictions. However, the court found the instructions and verdict forms clearly erroneous because they treated the battery charges as alternatives rather than recognizing level 7 as a lesser included offense of level 4, which caused jury confusion and resulted in convictions on both; the proper remedy is to vacate the level 4 conviction and resentence for the level 7 offense.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) imposing a $15,000 civil penalty on Michael Peterson and Peterson Irrigation, Inc., for violating the Kansas Groundwater Exploration and Protection Act by failing to properly grout the annular spaces of two water wells to the required depth and filing inaccurate construction logs. The district court reversed the penalty, interpreting the statute to require proof of willful conduct for civil penalties and finding none. On appeal, the court held that K.S.A. 82a-1216 does not require willfulness for civil penalties, that the agency's findings were supported by substantial evidence including inspections showing incomplete grouting and bacteria in one well, and that the fine was within statutory limits and not arbitrary or capricious. The court reversed the district court and reinstated the KDHE's adjudication and fine in full.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure