Kansas Court to decide if man’s possession convictions to be overturned
TOPEKA, Kan. (WIBW) - The Kansas Supreme Court will decide if the convictions of possession of a firearm and possession of methamphetamine will be overturned following possible errors from the Court of Appeals.
The Kansas Supreme Court says that during its Dec. 12 - 14 docket, it will hear an appeal in the case of State of Kansas v. Cory Wayne Bentley, which stems from Sedgwick Co. It said this is a direct appeal from Bentley following his convictions for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, driving while suspended, and failure to maintain a single lane while driving.
Court records indicate that Bentley was sentenced to 155 months - 12.9 years - in prison with a consecutive 6-month jail sentence.
At trial, the Court indicated that both parties noted that Bentley had been previously convicted of a felony that prohibited him from possessing a weapon. Parties further stipulated that he did not have a firearm before or during the crime. It was signed by Bentley, his attorney and the prosecutor and was admitted as evidence at trial.
On appeal, the court records note that a Court of Appeals panel agreed with Bentley’s argument that the district court made a mistake when it accepted the stipulation without getting a valid jury trial waiver on the record which is precedent. In a concurring opinion, Judge Garner recognized the precedent as binding but urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its holding.
“It strains reason to hold that a stipulation to one element amounts to a guilty plea requiring a jury trial waiver,” Garner wrote.
The Court said that issues to be on review include whether the Court of Appeals:
- Made a mistake in finding the district court erred with its acceptance of the stipulation without a valid jury trial waiver,
- Made a mistake when it held Bentley’s state,
- Made a mistake with the conclusion that a defense attorney can use a guilt-based defense unless the client “vociferously insisted he did not engage in charged acts and adamantly objected to any admission of guilt,”
- Made a mistake when it held that state law decides the severity level of distribution-related offenses based on the total amount possessed rather than the amount possessed with intent to distribute,
- Made a decision contrary to precedent that a pattern presumption instruction in relation to amounts possessed is legally inappropriate,
- The instruction given to the jury that it could infer intent to distribute from possession of an arbitrary amount of a controlled substance is legally inappropriate,
- The amount thresholds in state law are arbitrary and violate the Due Process Clause
- Made a mistake when it found that evidence Bentley knew he did not have his driver’s license was sufficient to show he knew his license was suspended.
Copyright 2022 WIBW. All rights reserved.