TOPEKA—A three-judge panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments at 9 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, November 17, at the Reno County Courthouse, 206 West 1st Avenue, Hutchinson.
Judges Thomas E. Malone, Stephen D. Hill and Melissa Taylor Standridge will hear oral argument in seven criminal and civil cases at dockets that convene at 9 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. The panel will also decide 16 cases without argument based on the parties' written submissions.
Malone, the presiding judge for the panel, said that the Court of Appeals regularly hears cases throughout the state.
"Almost every month of the year, panels of Court of Appeals judges will hear cases in Wichita, Topeka, and Kansas City," he said. "We welcome the opportunity to visit other places like Hutchinson, to make our court accessible to more Kansans."
Malone said that hearing cases around the state also saves money for the parties.
"Whenever a three-judge panel visits a location where many cases from the region can be heard, attorneys representing the parties do not have to travel to Topeka," Malone said.
Oral Arguments
Attorneys for each side will have an opportunity to present argument to the judges, and the judges will have a chance to ask questions. The court will then take each case under consideration and will issue a written decision at a later date, usually within about 60 days.
The appeals to be heard in Hutchinson arose in McPherson and Reno counties. In addition to the Court of Appeals panel hearing cases this week in Hutchinson, other three-judge panels of the Court of Appeals will be hearing cases in Wichita, Topeka, and Kansas City. All hearings are open to the public.
There are 14 judges on the Court of Appeals, and the judges sit in three-judge panels to decide cases. In 2014, the Court of Appeals resolved appeals in 1,861 cases, including 1,295 in which the court issued a formal written opinion.
The seven cases to be heard in Hutchinson are summarized as follows:
9 a.m. Tuesday, November 17, 2015
No. 112,183: State of Kansas v. Roberto S. Rincon, appeal from Reno County
In March 2012, Roberto S. Rincon was ordered to surrender all of his firearms as part of a protection from abuse order. The following day, after conducting surveillance, a Reno County Sheriff's Department detective swore an affidavit alleging that Rincon had not done so. The district court issued a search warrant for Rincon's vehicle. While executing that warrant, law enforcement discovered items believed to be related to manufacturing methamphetamine. An officer swore a second affidavit and obtained a second search warrant for the drug-related items. The continued search uncovered many drug-related items. Before trial, Rincon twice challenged the validity of the search warrants, especially the sufficiency of the underlying affidavits, but the district court rejected both challenges. After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the district court found Rincon guilty of multiple drug crimes. After conviction but before sentencing, the court filed an order clarifying that it had found that Rincon possessed a firearm in furtherance of each crime of conviction, resulting in a sentencing enhancement. After denying several posttrial motions, the court sentenced Rincon to a controlling sentence of 156 months' imprisonment. He appealed.
Issues on appeal are whether the district court erred by: denying Rincon's motions to suppress; denying Rincon's motion for a trial continuance, made three days prior to trial, so Rincon could replace appointed counsel with retained counsel; denying as untimely Rincon's posttrial motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial; improperly amending its verdict to include the firearm enhancement; refusing to appoint co-counsel to help Rincon represent himself; and granting Rincon's motion to appoint new counsel.
No. 113,117: Jesse J. Atkins v. Webcon and Kansas Building Industry Workers Compensation Fund, appeal from workers' compensation board
In 2009, Jesse Atkins worked for Hutchinson-based Webcon, Inc., on a crew that traveled weekly to Oklahoma to work on a roofing project. The crew drove company vehicles to Oklahoma on Monday mornings, stayed at a hotel there during the week, and returned to Hutchinson on Fridays. During their evenings, employees were free to do what they desired. Webcon paid for the hotel rooms and meals in Oklahoma and paid employees an additional bonus for each night they were there. Late one night, after being at another hotel a few blocks away, Atkins was struck by a car and seriously injured. He subsequently filed an application for workers compensation benefits and an administrative law judge held, among other things, that Atkins' injuries arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment. The administrative law judge awarded benefits and ordered Webcon to pay medical expenses. On appeal, the workers compensation board reversed, holding that Atkins' injuries did not arise out of and occur in the course of his employment. Atkins appealed.
Issue on appeal is whether the workers compensation board erred by holding that Atkins' injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.
No. 113,214: State of Kansas v. Charlette Hover, aka Charlette Ann Jenkins, appeal from Reno County
After a fight involving several people, Charlette Hover was arrested and charged with aggravated battery intentionally causing great bodily harm. At trial, the sate presented witnesses who testified that Hover had hit and kicked the victim, while Hover presented witnesses who testified that she had not. During jury deliberations, the jury sent out a written question asking whether Hover would share responsibility for all the harm done to the victim if the jury found she was guilty of battery. In response, the district court judge brought the jury back into the courtroom and instructed it on the theory of aiding and abetting. The jury convicted Hover of aggravated battery resulting in bodily harm. Hover appealed.
Issue on appeal is whether the district court committed reversible error by instructing the jury on aiding and abetting.
No. 107,798: State of Kansas v. Carlos Delgado Gonzales, appeal from McPherson County
When Carlos Delgado Gonzalez was arrested for vehicular burglary, he was intoxicated, agitated, and yelling at police officers. During the required pat-down search after officers took Gonzales to jail, Gonzales threw back his head, hitting the right temple of an officer who was searching him. A jury subsequently convicted Gonzales of vehicular burglary, criminal damage to property, and battery against a law enforcement officer. Gonzales' criminal history included a 2002 Arizona juvenile adjudication for burglary, which the district court classified as a juvenile person felony. The district court set Gonzales' criminal history score at C and sentenced him accordingly. Gonzales appealed.
Issues on appeal are whether there sufficient evidence to support the conviction of battery against a law enforcement officer; whether the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of battery; and whether the district court erred by classifying Gonzales' Arizona juvenile adjudication as a person felony.
1:30 p.m. Tuesday, November 17, 2015
No. 113,430: Jaclan Lanam v. Promise Regional Medical Center - Hutchinson, Inc., appeal from Reno County
In 2009, Jaclan Lanam had knee replacement surgery at Promise Regional Medical Center - Hutchinson. Lanam later filed suit, claiming that a certified nurse assistant taking her from the medical center to a car at discharge negligently dropped her to the ground, causing injury. The medical center filed a motion for summary judgment due to Lanam's failure to obtain a standard of care expert. Lanam replied that the common knowledge exception applied — there was no need for an expert to explain to a jury that a reasonable person would not drop an elderly woman. The district court agreed and denied the motion. After opening arguments at trial, however, the district court granted a mistrial, holding that Lanam's opening argument, which referred to safety rules, safety requirements, and the medical center's standard of care, had violated an order in limine and transformed the case from a simple negligence case into a medical malpractice case that required expert testimony. The medical center filed a motion for dismissal, which the district court granted. Lanam appealed.
Issues on appeal are whether the district court erred by dismissing the case and by granting a mistrial?
No. 111,353: Jean Hurt, as Administratrix of The Estate of Barry L. Venters v. Scott E. Sellers, D.O., appeal from Reno County
In 2001, Barry Venters was a passenger in a car involved in a single-vehicle accident, after which he was taken to Hutchinson Hospital, where Dr. Scott Sellers treated him. Venters died in 2010 and Jean Hurt, as administratrix of Venters' estate, brought this medical malpractice action against Sellers, alleging that Sellers' treatment of Venters was negligent and resulted in Venters' paralysis. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Sellers based on the jury verdict that apportioned 51 percent of the fault for Venters' injuries to Venters; 43 percent to Kyle Shive, the car's driver; and 6 percent to Sellers. Venters appealed.
Issues on appeal are whether the district court improperly admitted evidence of Shive's negligence as relevant for the jury's consideration of comparing Shive's percentage of fault; and whether the district court erred by instructing the jury on comparing Venter's fault based on his duties as a patient.
No. 113,576: State of Kansas v. Trae D. Reed, appeal from Reno County
During a traffic stop, driver Trae D. Reed got out his wallet to produce identification. When asked to get out of the car, Reed explained that the driver's side door did not work, so he climbed out through the car window, placing his wallet on the roof of the car. Reed and an officer then stood at the rear of the car while the officer ran Reed's information through dispatch. After learning that Reed had a suspended driver's license, the officer arrested Reed and placed him in the patrol car. Officers interviewed other people at the scene, then took Reed's wallet off the roof of the car and searched it, finding drugs. During the booking process at the jail, the wallet was searched again, revealing more drugs. After he was charged with multiple crimes, Reed filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by searching his wallet. The district court granted the motion, holding that the search was not justified by safety concerns, as an effort to safeguard evidence of the offense of arrest, or as a search incident to arrest and that the inevitable discovery doctrine did not authorize admission of the evidence. The state appealed.
Issue on appeal is whether the district court erred by granting Reed's motion to suppress.