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

In State v. Carter, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, obstruction of official duty, and battery on a law enforcement officer, stemming from a police pursuit following a reported stabbing. Carter appealed, arguing that the State violated his Fifth Amendment rights by commenting on his post-Miranda silence during questioning and that there was insufficient evidence to support the felony eluding conviction under K.S.A. 8-1568(b)(2). The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the issue regarding post-Miranda silence was not preserved due to lack of a timely objection and that defense counsel had opened the door to the questioning. On the evidence issue, the court reasoned that the felony classification was proper because the officers intended to arrest Carter for a felony based on their belief that he had committed aggravated battery, consistent with the interpretation of "official duty" in State v. Hudson.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Gregory Lundquist's convictions for marijuana possession, drug paraphernalia possession, and felony obstruction of official duty after police stopped him for traffic violations and found marijuana residue. The court affirmed the drug-related convictions, finding the jury instructions accurate under Kansas law requiring no minimum amount of marijuana and that the charges were not multiplicitous. However, it reversed the felony obstruction conviction due to insufficient evidence, as the officers were initially enforcing misdemeanor traffic laws, making it a misdemeanor obstruction instead.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Blair, the defendant appealed his conviction for possession of ephedrine, arguing that evidence from a warrantless search of his home and garage should have been suppressed and that his sentence was illegal. The court reversed the conviction and vacated the sentence, holding that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Officers had responded to an odor complaint, observed items associated with methamphetamine production, and entered the home after the defendant refused consent and inquired about an attorney, but the court found no valid consent, no exigent circumstances or emergency justifying immediate entry, and that the defendant retained a reasonable expectation of privacy despite the partially open garage door. The trial court's denial of the suppression motion was therefore erroneous, as the primary police motive was to gather evidence rather than address an immediate safety threat.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In State v. Luttig, the defendant appealed his bench-trial convictions for unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia, arguing that evidence found during a warrantless protective sweep of his home should have been suppressed and that he should have received a misdemeanor rather than felony sentence. The court affirmed both the convictions and the felony sentence. It held that the protective sweep was justified under the Buie exception to the warrant requirement because officers had specific and articulable facts creating a reasonable belief that the premises might harbor individuals posing a danger, and the items were found in plain view during that limited search. On sentencing, the court determined that the specific penalty provision in the manufacturing statute controlled over the general misdemeanor penalty statute, consistent with rules of statutory construction favoring the more specific provision and avoiding absurd results.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Shoptaw, the defendant appealed his three convictions for rape based on sexual intercourse with his 13-year-old daughter, raising claims that the trial court erred by omitting a multiple acts unanimity instruction, denying discovery or in camera review of the victim's psychological records, and refusing a psychiatric examination of the victim. The court held that the lack of a unanimity instruction was not clearly erroneous under the harmless error analysis from State v. Hill because the incidents were not legally or factually separate and the general denial defense applied uniformly. It further ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an in camera review of the mental health records but did not abuse its discretion in denying the psychiatric exam request, as the defendant failed to present compelling reasons under the standard from State v. Gregg. The court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the in camera inspection, with a new trial ordered only if the records contained information that probably would have changed the trial outcome.

criminal lawfamily law

This case involves a dispute over whether a Missouri child support order, registered in Kansas under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), could be modified to terminate support using Kansas law when a child reached age 18 while attending college. The parents had divorced in Missouri, and after the children moved with their mother to Kansas, the father sought to end support based on Kansas statutes setting the age of majority at 18. The trial court ruled that Kansas procedural and substantive law applied to the duration of support and terminated payments accordingly. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that UIFSA's choice-of-law rule requires the law of the issuing state (Missouri) to govern the nature, extent, amount, and duration of support, including Missouri's provisions allowing support through age 22 for children meeting college enrollment and performance requirements.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Gibson, Brandon K. Gibson appealed his jury convictions in two consolidated cases for offenses including cultivation and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and related drug paraphernalia and tax stamp charges. The court affirmed the convictions, finding that evidence obtained via search warrants was properly admitted under K.S.A. 60-455 to show intent and plan, that sufficient evidence supported the jury verdicts on distribution and paraphernalia counts despite small quantities of drugs recovered, and that sentencing procedures complied with statutory requirements. The appeal was dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction over a presumptive prison sentence in one case. Core reasoning centered on the totality of circumstantial evidence, including paraphernalia and witness testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, and statutory limits on appellate review of sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a grandfather, Robert DeGraeve, petitioning for visitation rights with his three grandchildren after their mother, Nicole Holm, ended contact following a period when he had served as guardian for one child, Z. The trial court granted visitation with Z. based on findings of a substantial relationship and that it served the child's best interests, while denying fees to the mother. On appeal, the mother argued that visitation could not be awarded without a finding of parental unfitness, but the appellate court affirmed, holding that Kansas statute K.S.A. 38-129 requires only the statutory elements of substantial relationship and best interests, without a prerequisite unfitness determination, and that the presumption favoring parental decisions can be overcome by evidence. The court reviewed the record for substantial evidence supporting the trial court's conclusions and found the denial of attorney fees proper due to the mother's vindictive motives.

family law

Chris Darnell, an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility, appealed the dismissal of his K.S.A. 60-1501 habeas corpus petition alleging that prison medical providers violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing insufficient treatment for abdominal pain, bleeding, and related conditions. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief, concluding that although Darnell's medical needs were serious, the staff's conduct did not constitute deliberate indifference. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence that Darnell received regular evaluations and care from multiple providers consistent with community standards, and that his claims reflected only a disagreement with the chosen course of treatment rather than a denial of access to medical personnel or recommended care.

criminal lawcivil rightshealthcare

The case involved a dispute over the calculation of underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under Kansas law after a fatal single-car accident in which multiple claimants divided the tortfeasor's $50,000 per person/$100,000 per occurrence liability limits, resulting in a $25,000 payment to the insured's estate. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the insured's estate could recover $75,000 in UIM benefits from Farm Bureau, computed by subtracting the actual recovery from the $100,000 UIM per person limit rather than the tortfeasor's full per person limit. The core reasoning rested on the plain language of K.S.A. 40-284(b), which allows an insured to recover damages to the extent UIM coverage exceeds the bodily injury limits carried by the other driver, applied here to the actual settlement amount approved as reasonable by the parties.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) appealing a district court's termination of a father's parental rights in a private child in need of care proceeding initiated by the child's mother. The Court of Appeals of Kansas dismissed the appeal. The core reasoning was that SRS lacked standing to appeal because it was neither notified of nor a participant in the proceeding, had not filed the required notice of assignment of support rights to become a necessary party under K.S.A. 39-754(f), and the statutes governing CINC cases did not confer interested-party status in this context.

family lawprocedure

Heather Inscho sued Exide Corporation for breach of an implied employment contract after her termination for fighting with a coworker. The trial court granted summary judgment to Exide, finding as a matter of law that no implied contract existed and that there was just cause for termination even if one did. On appeal, the court affirmed, noting that Inscho had signed acknowledgments stating employment was at-will, the employee handbook disclaimed any contract, and her admitted conduct of grabbing her opponent's hair violated the company's written policy against fighting. The court reasoned that unilateral employee expectations are insufficient to create an implied contract and that the employer's investigation and decision did not act arbitrarily or violate its own policies.

labor & employment

The case involved Patrick Freel appealing his convictions for possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and possession of paraphernalia after a traffic stop and vehicle search. The court affirmed the denial of his motion to disclose the confidential informant's identity, concluding the informant was a mere tipster whose identity was privileged. It reversed the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, holding that the officer violated the Fourth Amendment by encouraging the drug dog to enter the vehicle without probable cause or an exterior alert. The case was remanded with directions to suppress the evidence and proceed accordingly.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a middle school student who suffered a compound arm fracture during a mandatory physical education class after using a springboard to touch a basketball rim, leading him to sue the school district for negligence under the Kansas Tort Claims Act. The district sought summary judgment based on the recreational use exception in K.S.A. 75-6104(o), which the trial court granted; on remand from a prior appeal, the court also rejected the student's claims that the statute violated equal protection and due process under the U.S. and Kansas Constitutions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the gymnasium qualified for the exception because it was permitted and used by the public for recreational activities such as basketball, soccer, and after-school programs, and applying rational basis review to uphold the statute as rationally related to the state's interest in encouraging governmental entities to provide recreational facilities without excessive litigation costs. The court found the facts similar to prior precedent and rejected arguments that case-by-case application would increase litigation burdens.

torts & liabilitycivil rights