Kansas Supreme Court Docket for March 11-15 features two SWK cases

0
238

(The following is courtesy of the Kansas Supreme Court)

Cases summarized below are on the Supreme Court’s March 11-15, 2019, docket. Cases will be heard in the Supreme Court courtroom on the third floor of the Kansas Judicial Center in Topeka.

All Supreme Court oral arguments are broadcast live over the internet. To watch proceedings live online, follow the Watch Supreme Court Live! link from the court’s website at www.kscourts.org.


9 a.m.♦ Monday, March 11, 2019

Appeal No. 116,505: State of Kansas v. Christopher Boothby

Stevens County: (Petition for Review) A jury convicted Boothby of aggravated assault and criminal threat after he threatened his cousin Jason Burnett with a gun. Boothby seeks a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed Boothby’s convictions. Issues on review are whether: 1) the district judge made unduly prejudicial comments at voir dire about Boothby’s other criminal cases previously before the court; 2) the Supreme Court should reconsider its prior holdings that, in judicial misconduct cases, the defendant bears the burden of proving the misconduct was not harmless; and 3) the judge’s jury instructions eliminated the possibility of jury nullification.


9 a.m. ♦ Wednesday, March 13, 2019

Appeal No. 115,887: State of Kansas v. Jacob J. McAlister Jr.

Finney County: (Petition for Review) McAlister appeals the district court’s decision denying his motions to correct illegal sentences filed in three criminal cases from Finney County dating to 1996. The district court dismissed the motions as procedurally barred, and McAlister claims on appeal that the district court erred. The State argued McAlister is not entitled to retroactive relief under Dickey,301 Kan. 1018 (2015), because the sentences became final prior to the decision in Apprendi,530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Court of Appeals vacated McAlister’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding the district court erred. Although his sentence in the primary case remained legal, the reclassification will affect the criminal history score in the other cases. Issues on review are whether: 1) the district court erred in denying McAlister’s motions to correct illegal sentences; and 2) the Court of Appeals properly applied Dickey in deciding McAlister was entitled to retroactive relief to correct an illegal sentence.