Joseph Pierron

In Jordan v. Jordan, the Kansas Court of Appeals reviewed a district court’s order extending a protection from abuse (PFA) order against Roy Jordan for one additional year, which Shannon Jordan had requested during their divorce proceedings. The district court granted the extension after an evidentiary hearing, citing Shannon’s continued subjective fear of Roy, incidents such as hospital and school encounters, and the need to maintain peace between the parties. On appeal, Roy argued that the extension lacked substantial competent evidence and improperly relied on subjective beliefs. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-3107(e)’s use of “may” grants the trial court discretion to extend a PFA order, that such orders are inherently subjective, and that the district court (the same judge who issued the original order) did not abuse its discretion under the circumstances.

family law

In State v. Perkins, Thomas Perkins was convicted by a jury of felony DUI (his fourth offense), driving with a suspended license, and open containers after being found intoxicated in the driver's seat of a parked truck on the highway shoulder. Perkins appealed the DUI and license convictions, arguing insufficient evidence for alternative means of committing the offenses and challenging the mandatory fine. The court affirmed the DUI conviction, holding that the evidence supported both operating and attempting to operate the vehicle under K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 8-1567 without needing to import the general attempt statute's definition, and that jurors need not agree on the specific means. It reversed the license suspension conviction due to lack of evidence on the alternative means of a cancelled or revoked license (only suspension was shown) and vacated the fine, remanding for the trial court to consider community service as an alternative per precedent.

criminal law

The case involved Kelly K. Rhodes's appeal of her DUI conviction arising from a 2008 Overland Park police checkpoint stop on Metcalf Avenue, where officers observed signs of impairment, conducted field sobriety tests, and obtained a breath alcohol reading of .115. The Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed the conviction, ruling that the checkpoint satisfied the multi-factor balancing test from State v. Deskins for Fourth Amendment reasonableness because officers exercised limited discretion, the operation followed superior directives, and it was effective for detecting impaired drivers. The court further held that the Intoxilyzer 8000 results were admissible, as the administering officer complied with KDHE observation and certification requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute between unmarried parents over changing their child's surname as part of a paternity action filed under the Kansas Parentage Act. The father sought to have the child's last name changed from the mother's to his own, but the mother did not consent; the district court held an evidentiary hearing and ordered the change based on the child's best interests. On appeal, the mother argued that the KPA provided no statutory authority for a court to alter a child's name without both parents' agreement, citing conflicting prior appellate decisions. The Court of Appeals reviewed the relevant statutes, including K.S.A. 38-1130, and controlling precedents such as In re Marriage of Killman, concluding that the KPA limits name changes to situations involving joint parental consent and does not authorize unilateral changes in paternity proceedings. The court therefore reversed the district court's order.

family law

This case involved a Kansas workers' compensation dispute where claimant Donald Edwards sought review and modification of awards for two work-related injuries at Boeing: a 1998 back injury and a 2001 neck injury, both resulting in settlements subject to later adjustment. After being laid off in 2004 due to medical restrictions, the Workers Compensation Board awarded him 100% wage loss work disability under both claims and granted Boeing a credit to avoid duplicate benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the work disability award for the back injury claim, finding it attributable to permanent restrictions from that injury for which Boeing had provided accommodations. However, it reversed the award for the neck injury claim, holding there was no substantial evidence of increased functional impairment or task loss from the neck injury at the time of layoff, as Edwards had no ongoing neck restrictions and all disability stemmed from the first injury. The court remanded for modification of the order accordingly.

labor & employment

This case concerns an alleged biological father's attempt to set aside a finalized adoption of child A.A.T. on grounds that the natural mother concealed the pregnancy and provided false information, preventing him from receiving notice and participating in the proceedings. The adoptive parents appealed the district court's decision that DNA testing to confirm paternity could proceed without first holding a best-interests hearing under In re Marriage of Ross. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Ross best-interests analysis applies only to scenarios involving displacement of a presumed father in a marital dissolution context and does not extend to adoption challenges where the adoptive parents assert no biological tie. The court further reasoned that statutory presumptions of paternity based on support obligations or adoption decrees do not bar testing when the underlying adoption's validity is contested as void as to the biological father. The matter was remanded for resumption of proceedings after DNA testing.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Lilia Rodriguez-Tocker and the estate and trust of her late husband Alfred Tocker over the interpretation of their antenuptial and postnuptial agreements, which addressed the separate and joint ownership of property acquired before and during their marriage. The defendants appealed the district court's partial summary judgment on the agreements, an injunction barring distribution of estate or trust assets, and orders removing Darryl Tocker as trustee and executor while disqualifying Robert Tocker as successor. The appellate court dismissed the challenge to the partial summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction because it was a nonfinal order. It affirmed the injunction and removals, finding no abuse of discretion given the district court's findings that continued administration by the disqualified individuals would likely cause conflict, difficulty, and expense pending final resolution of Lilia's claims.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In State v. Hankerson, the defendant appealed his convictions for aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and three counts of attempted first-degree murder arising from a police pursuit in which he fired shots at officers and forced a homeowner inside her residence as a hostage. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. It held that the two attempted murder charges involving the same officer were not multiplicitous because they stemmed from separate volleys of shots at different times, the evidence supported the verdicts, the prosecutor's improper personal opinions on guilt were harmless in context, and the criminal history score calculation did not violate Apprendi.

criminal lawprocedure

In this construction contract dispute, Saddlewood Downs, L.L.C. appealed a trial court judgment awarding payment to Holland Corporation for fly ash stabilization work on a subdivision street project that the City of Olathe required after the original bid and contract, which did not mention the work. Saddlewood also challenged the denial of its slander of title claim based on Holland's mechanic's lien filings. The court affirmed, holding that the contract permitted adjustments for changed scope via authorization, evidence supported an agreement or instruction for Holland to perform the work at a negotiated price, and Holland's lien filings lacked malice because they were made to collect amounts believed due with colorable arguments for validity despite some date inaccuracies. The court found no error in rejecting the slander claim due to insufficient proof of malice or damages.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by a Lenexa police detective who alleged he contracted hepatitis C from blood exposure while investigating a 1999 shooting victim and gathering evidence at the hospital and morgue. The administrative law judge awarded medical expenses plus 100% permanent partial disability, which the Workers Compensation Appeals Board affirmed as to the work-related nature of the infection but reduced to 41% permanent partial disability based on functional impairment ratings and periods of contagiousness or treatment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial competent evidence supported the conclusion that the infection occurred in the course of employment despite conflicting medical expert testimony on timing and causation, and that the disability award complied with the statutory definition of permanent partial general disability. The court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility in reviewing Board determinations.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute between T.R. Inc. and the Brandons over the terms of a three-year lease for 3,697 acres of ranch and farmland in Kansas, including rights to wheat and alfalfa crops, government agricultural payments, and pasture rental. The trial court ruled in favor of the landlords on most issues, such as denying the tenant's claims to 2002 crop proceeds and 1998 feed grain payments, and ordering reimbursement for 2001 payments, while abating part of the pasture rent due to insufficient acreage. On appeal, the court affirmed these decisions, interpreting the lease's clear expiration date as ending the tenant's rights on April 30, 2001, and finding substantial evidence supported the equitable abatement of rent for the reduced pasture area.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a great-aunt who sought interested party status under K.S.A. 38-1541 to challenge the adoption of two children after their parents' rights were terminated and custody was awarded to the Kansas Social and Rehabilitation Services. The trial court denied her motion, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the appellant did not qualify as an interested party under K.S.A. 38-1502(e) and therefore had no standing to appeal. The court further reasoned that even if she had standing, the denial of interested party status was not one of the four types of appealable orders (adjudication, disposition, termination of parental rights, or temporary custody) specified in K.S.A. 38-1591(a).

family lawprocedure

The case involved Nathaniel Ellibee, a Kansas prison inmate, appealing the district court's summary dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging the constitutionality of Internal Management Policy and Procedure (IMPP) 04-103. That policy requires 10% of an inmate's incoming funds (after obligations) to be deposited in a mandatory savings account, with use restricted mainly to garnishments and court filing fees, and the balance released upon the inmate's release or death. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the policy did not violate Ellibee's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The court reasoned that prison officials have broad discretion in managing correctional facilities, that similar mandatory deductions had been upheld in prior cases, and that the program served legitimate interests such as aiding inmates' readjustment to society and controlling currency flow within prisons.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Justin D. Elnicki, convicted by a jury of one count of rape and one count of aggravated criminal sodomy after an alleged assault on J.A. in a church parking lot following her acceptance of a ride. Elnicki appealed on grounds including sufficiency of the evidence, admission of his videotaped police interview containing officers' accusations of lying, prosecutorial misconduct, and sentencing. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the victim's testimony, physical evidence such as matching semen and hair samples, and Elnicki's inconsistent statements provided sufficient support for the jury's verdict. The court further concluded that any error in admitting the interview statements without redaction or a limiting instruction was harmless and did not affect the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

Patrick C. Lynn, a Kansas inmate convicted of aggravated burglary, kidnapping, rape, and sodomy, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in district court alleging that the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) transferred him to an Oklahoma prison in retaliation for his litigation and grievances against state officials. The district court refused to allow the petition to be filed, finding that Lynn had not exhausted his administrative remedies under K.S.A. 75-52,138 and that mandamus was not available to challenge the KDOC's discretionary transfer decisions. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Lynn failed to exhaust KDOC grievance procedures before filing and that interstate transfers under the Interstate Corrections Compact and related statutes are discretionary acts not subject to mandamus, as inmates have no protected liberty interest in remaining in a particular state's prison. The court also noted that the transfer decision did not implicate a legally specified duty enforceable by mandamus.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Josiah Bunyard's conviction for raping E.N. after a party where the two had initial consensual sexual contact that E.N. testified turned nonconsensual. E.N. stated that after penetration began she told Bunyard multiple times to stop, tried to move away, and cried, but he continued the intercourse for several more minutes despite her protests. Bunyard testified that the entire encounter was consensual and that E.N. never asked him to stop. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that under Kansas law rape can occur when a participant withdraws consent during intercourse and the other person continues the act by overcoming the victim through force or fear. The court reasoned that the statutory elements of sexual intercourse without consent when overcome by force or fear do not require the absence of consent to exist before penetration.

criminal law

The case involved the State charging Monty D. Seems with felony DUI based on prior convictions after a traffic stop and blood test showing impairment, but the magistrate dismissed the felony charge at the preliminary hearing for lack of evidence of those priors, and the district court affirmed. The appellate court upheld the dismissal, reasoning that while prior convictions are not elements of the DUI offense to be proven at trial under K.S.A. 8-1567, they must be established at the preliminary hearing to demonstrate probable cause that a felony occurred and give the court jurisdiction. The court distinguished earlier precedents that addressed only misdemeanor classifications or post-conviction sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Millennium Financial Services (MFS) and John Dopps over priority of security interests in vehicles used as collateral for loans to Norman Thole and his businesses. The district court found that MFS had a perfected security interest that took priority over Dopps' interest, granted summary judgment to MFS on its conversion claim against Dopps, and awarded attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that MFS properly filed financing statements to perfect its interest while Dopps failed to file any UCC-1 statements, and that damages for conversion could include attorney fees as if MFS had disposed of the collateral under the UCC. The case was remanded only for recalculation of attorney fees limited to the period before the summary judgment ruling.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In State v. Scheuerman, the defendant appealed his sentence for involuntary manslaughter while DUI, arguing that the district court improperly included a prior aggravated assault conviction in his criminal history score and that an Oklahoma DUI should not be considered, while the State cross-appealed the exclusion of the Oklahoma conviction. The court affirmed the district court's calculation of a criminal history score of B. It held that the aggravated assault conviction was valid because the diversion agreement did not require a plea on the diverted charge in violation of K.S.A. 22-2910, and the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Oklahoma proceeding resulted in a DUI conviction rather than reckless driving.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Huff, the defendant appealed her sentences after pleading guilty to two felonies and three misdemeanors, contending that consecutive jail terms for the misdemeanors were unauthorized under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act and that an extended probation term violated Apprendi requirements. The court affirmed the sentences, ruling that K.S.A. 21-4608(a) permits consecutive imprisonment for multiple misdemeanor convictions and that the probation term was not an appealable departure. The reasoning centered on the KSGA's definitions applying only to felony sentences, leaving misdemeanor sentencing governed by general statutes that authorize consecutiveness, and on precedents holding that probation terms do not increase sentences beyond statutory maxima under Apprendi.

criminal lawprocedure