The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions April 24, 2020:
Appeal No. 116,111: State of Kansas v. Freddie Alec Thomas
The Kansas Supreme Court ordered Barton County District Court to reevaluate its decision to grant Thomas immunity from prosecution under the state's self-defense laws. In 2015, Thomas fatally shot an unarmed man. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Dan Biles, the court said the facts the district court relied on did not necessarily mean Thomas acted in self-defense. The court said there were disputes about what happened during the conflict that needed to be resolved before the immunity decision could be made.Appeal No. 117,743: State of Kansas v. Seth Collins
The Kansas Supreme Court reinstated criminal charges against Collins stemming from a 2016 confrontation outside his apartment. Collins used a knife to fatally wound one woman and injure another, both unarmed. This occurred when the women followed Collins to his apartment after a parking lot brawl. Sedgwick County District Court dismissed the charges, ruling Collins was immune from prosecution because his actions were justified under the state's self-defense laws. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Dan Biles, the court ruled immunity should not have been granted because there was probable cause to believe Collins' actions were not justified as self-defense. Instead, the court said, the "decision whether to hold Collins criminally liable for his conduct, and to what degree, should be made at trial."Appeal No. 118,737: State of Kansas v. Filiberto B. Espinoza Jr.
Summary calendar; no oral argument
In an opinion written by Justice Caleb Stegall, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Espinoza's life sentence with eligibility for parole after 25 years. Espinoza pleaded guilty in Wyandotte County District Court to first-degree felony murder —an off-grid person felony mandating a hard-25 sentence. But before sentencing, Espinoza moved for a durational departure arguing the hard-25 sentence was unconstitutional as applied to the facts of his case under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. Espinoza also raised this argument orally at sentencing. The district court denied his challenge, finding the sentence constitutional. Espinoza challenged the district court's decision on direct appeal, arguing the district court erred when it failed to make factual findings concerning Espinoza's as-applied constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding a defendant making an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of a sentence under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights has an obligation to ensure an adequate factual record is developed in district court. If necessary, this requires the defendant to file a motion invoking the judge's duty to make findings of fact and conclusions of law under Supreme Court Rule 165 (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 215). Because Espinoza failed to do so, the court affirmed his sentence.