December 2, 2024

Contact:

Lisa Taylor

Public Information Director

785-296-4872

[email protected]

All Supreme Court oral arguments are livestreamed at www.youtube.com/KansasSupremeCourt.

Accommodation

Any person with a disability who requires accommodation to access the docket should notify the judicial branch ADA coordinator as early as possible:

ADA Coordinator
[email protected]
785-296-2256
TTY at 711

Reporters who plan to cover oral arguments need to be familiar with Supreme Court Rule 1001: Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings, which prohibits using electronic recording devices during proceedings. If you plan to be in the courtroom when a case is heard, notify Lisa Taylor at [email protected] by noon the day before it is scheduled. If you want to use a camera, video camera, or audio recording device, it must be approved by the chief justice in advance of the oral argument.

Johnson County: (Petition for Review) Austin Properties, LLC submitted an application to the City of Shawnee to develop a “high-end” multifamily residential development planned on approximately 29 acres near Highway K-7 and Woodsonia Drive. An overwhelming number of neighbors filed a protest petition opposing Austin’s application, thus requiring the City to achieve a three-fourths majority vote to approve Austin’s application. After failing to achieve the majority vote, Austin’s proposal failed to pass. Austin sought judicial review, and the district court upheld the City’s decision. The Court of Appeals held that while there is no doubt about the court’s review, and likely the credibility and reliability of the City’s zoning decisions would benefit from a more complete explanation of its rationale for denying Austin’s application, there was sufficient information in the record to demonstrate the reasonableness of the City’s decision. Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred in striking the due process provisions from the rezoning statute, K.S.A. 12-757(d), on the ground that they conflict with the adjacent-landowner protest authorization within the same statute, K.S.A. 12-757(f); 2) the Court of Appeals decision conflicts with Wells v. City of Basehor, 97 P.3d 528, and erroneously expands the scope of K.S.A. 12-757(f) beyond allowing landowners to protest the use of adjacent land, to protesting development design plans; and 3) the Court of Appeals established an unachievable evidentiary standard.

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Collins appealed the district court’s order denying his motion to reinstate his appeal finding that no exception applied that would allow Collins to file an appeal out of time. The Court of Appeals found Collins’ arguments to be unpreserved or unpersuasive and affirmed. The issue on review is whether the exceptional circumstances excuse Collins’ filing his notice of appeal late.

Appeal No. 126,130: State of Kansas v. Christopher Shawn Adams

Ellis County: (Petition for Review) If a prosecutor charges a witness with perjury based on their preliminary hearing testimony in a criminal case, may that person then assert a constitutional privilege against self-incrimination when called as a State’s witness in the later jury trial? The district court ruled Stephanie Lang could exercise her right to avoid another perjury charge in that circumstance. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the State’s grant of immunity to Lang under K.S.A. 22-3415 was insufficient to protect her against a second perjury charge and the State could not use Lang’s preliminary hearing testimony and her out-of-court statements presented during the preliminary hearing as evidence in the jury trial, even though she would be unavailable as a witness. The Court of Appeals also held that because the State did not challenge that ruling in bringing this interlocutory appeal, it may be reconsidered in the district court. The issue on review is whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the State’s grant of use and derivative use immunity to Lang was insufficient to protect her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because her immunized testimony, if false, could subject her to the risk of a future charge of perjury.

Disciplinary: Solorio was admitted to the practice of law in 2000. Solorio’s ethics matter involved his representation of two individuals in an immigration matter and his failure to take action on their behalf. The disciplinary administrator recommended that Solorio’s license be suspended for one year. After a 90-day period, the disciplinary administrator recommended the remaining nine months be stayed and Solorio placed on 18 months’ probation. Solorio recommended that he be suspended for six months, with an immediate stay and that he be placed on 18 months’ probation. The hearing panel recommends that Solorio be censured and that the censure be published in the Kansas Reports.

Case No. 128,210: In The Matter of Laine C. Rundus

Disciplinary: Rundus was admitted to the practice of law in 2007. Rundus was charged and convicted of DUI on three different occasions. The Supreme Court temporarily suspended Rundus’ license on April 3, 2024.

The parties entered a summary submission agreement with a jointly recommended suspension of Rundus’ license for one year.

Bourbon County: (Petition for Review, Cross Petition for Review) David T. Everett appeals the district court’s final order granting declaratory relief, which authorized the final distribution of a trust and ordered him to surrender $4,000 in attorney fees from his distribution to the trustee, Sarah E. Tharrett. On appeal, Everett raises several procedural challenges to the proceedings in district court and argues the court abused its discretion in granting Tharrett’s motion for attorney fees. The Court of Appeals stated that the record reflects that Everett, after being sent the final distribution check from the trust, which was calculated in accordance with the district court’s final order, accepted the payment and negotiated the distribution check. The Court of Appeals held that because Everett voluntarily accepted the benefits of the district court’s order, he cannot now take the inconsistent position of appealing from it. Because Everett accepted the district court’s judgment, the Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction over his appeal and dismissed it. The issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred by failing to address Everett’s argument that acquiescence to a void judgment is not possible; 2) the Court of Appeals erred by failing to address Everett’s argument that acquiescence was not properly preserved below; 3) the Court of Appeals erred when it rejected Everett’s self-protection argument; and 4) the Court of Appeals erred when it held that no issue Everett raised was separable from issues he alleged concerning acquiescence.

Appeal No. 126,288: State of Kansas v. Brenton S. Cook

Saline County: (Criminal Appeal) In 2006, a jury convicted Cook of first-degree murder, and he received a hard 25 life sentence. Cook’s convictions were affirmed on appeal and three subsequent motions under K.S.A. 60-1507 were denied. In this motion to correct illegal sentence, he challenges his sentence because his trial violated the merger doctrine, multiplicity, and double jeopardy statutes. The district court immediately denied Cook’s motion. The issue on review is whether the district court erred in immediately denying Cook’s motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Office of Judicial Administration

301 SW 10th Avenue

Topeka, KS 66612-1507

785-296-2256

www.kscourts.gov