State v. Edwards

544 P.3d 815

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Jerome EDWARDS, Appellant.

No. 125,632

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Submitted Without Oral Argument

November 3, 2023.

Opinion Filed March 15, 2024.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The plain language of K.S.A. 21-2512 grants the district court jurisdiction to consider and act on filings made under the statute even after an appeal has been docketed.

2. The law of the case doctrine applies to motions for DNA testing under K.S.A. 21-2512 and prevents a party from relitigating an issue already decided in the same proceeding.

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; C. William Ossmann, judge.

Joseph A. Desch, of Law Office of Joseph A. Desch, of Topeka, was on the briefs for appellant.

Michael R. Serra, deputy district attorney, Michael F. Kagay, district attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Luckert, C.J.:

In 2011, 2018, and 2022, Jerome Edwards filed motions in the district court under K.S.A. 21-2512 seeking DNA testing of various biological material on evidence. His 2018 and 2022 motions asked for testing of biological materials on the same two items—a cigarette butt and a bullet. The district court denied both motions, and Edwards now appeals the denial of his 2022 motion.

On appeal, Edwards argues the district court erred in applying the law of the case doctrine to deny his 2022 motion and in finding that the motion was an attempt to relitigate issues already settled through Edwards’ unsuccessful 2018 motion. Edwards contends the order denying his 2018 motion can have no preclusive effect under the law of the case doctrine because the district court did not have jurisdiction over his case when it denied the motion, which means the order was void. His jurisdiction argument relies on the fact that he had an appeal pending in the same ease when the judge ruled on the 2018 motion. He cites the general rule that a district court loses jurisdiction when an appeal is filed.

While we recognize this general rule, we disagree that it applies to a district court’s consideration of motions under K.S.A. 21-2612. In State v. Thurber, 313 Kan. 1002, 492 P.3d 1185 (2021), we recognized K.S.A. 21-2512. is an exception to the general rule. We noted that K.S.A 21-2512(a) allowed a defendant in custody for certain crimes to seek DNA testing "at any time" and "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law." We held this plain language granted the district court jurisdiction to consider and act on a motion seeking DNA testing under K.S.A. 21-2512 even after an appeal has been docketed. 313 Kan. 1002, Syl. ¶ 5, 492 P.3d 1185.

Today, we hold that Thurber controls our decision and, applying it here, we conclude the district court had jurisdiction to deny Edwards’ 2022 motion. The order denying Edwards’ 2018 motion became the law of the case and, because Edwards’ 2018 and 2022 motions sought DNA testing of the biological material on the same evidence, the district court properly applied the law of the case doctrine to deny Edwards’ 2022 motion. We thus affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

The facts underlying Edwards convictions, which arise from the shooting of a marijuana dealer in a robbery attempt turned deadly, are developed in his prior appeals. State v. Edwards, 311 Kan. 879, 467 P.3d 484 (2020) (affirming denial of motion for new trial based on results of DNA testing); State v. Edwards, 264 Kan. 177, 955 P.2d 1276 (1998) (affirming conviction on direct appeal and remanding for nunc pro tunc correction of journal entry of sentencing). Edwards was convicted of felony first-degree murder, conspiracy to possess with intent to sell hallucinogenic drugs, and aggravated robbery.

Multiple witnesses testified they saw Edwards arrive at the residence of the victim, Donnie Smart. A struggle ensued between the two, and witnesses heard gunshots and saw Smart slump to his knees and then to the ground.

After this court affirmed Edwards’ conviction and sentences on direct appeal, he mounted several collateral attacks. See Edwards v. Roberts, 479 Fed. Appx. 822, 2012 WL 1573619 (10th Cir. 2012); Edwards v. State, No. 99,868, 209 P.3d 764, 2009 WL 1858243 (Kan. App. 2009) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied May 18, 2010; Edwards v. State, 31 Kam. App. 2d 778, 73 P.3d 772 (2003); Edwards v. State, No. 83,575, 2000 WL 36746174 (Kan. App. 2000) (unpublished opinion).

After filing those cases, Edwards filed a motion in 2011 seeking DNA testing of blood samples, clothes, drug paraphernalia, and a broken watch. The district court granted the motion. DNA testing of some items was inconclusive or "effectively excluded" Edwards as a source of the DNA. Edwards then asked for a new trial based on the DNA results. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, but ultimately denied relief. The court recognized that the DNA test results favored Edwards and that no physical evidence had been admitted at trial linking Edwards to the murder. Even so, the court denied Edwards a new trial after noting that Edwards’ attorney emphasized the lack of physical evidence throughout the trial, but the jury convicted him despite knowing no physical evidence linked him to the crime. The court held it was not reasonably probable the DNA test results would change the outcome of his trial because the eyewitness accounts and overall totality of the evidence provided strong evidence that Edwards committed the crimes.

Edwards, filed a notice of appeal in which he sought appellate, review of the district court order denying his motion for a new trial "and all other adverse or partially adverse rulings made in the course [of] the pursuit of his motion for DNA testing filed September 20, 2011." This court affirmed the district court Edwards, 311 Kan. at 892, 467 P.3d 484.

In 2018, while Edwards’ appeal of his 2011 motion was pending, he filed another pro se motion for DNA testing. This time he requested testing of two additional untested items—a bullet and a cigarette butt. The district court denied the motion, reasoning the new tests results would be cumulative and nonexculpatory even if they favored Edwards because the jury knew there was no implicating physical evidence, including DNA evidence, admitted at trial. Edwards did not appeal this denial.

In early 2022, Edwards filed yet another motion for DNA testing, which was functionally identical to the 2018 motion. The district court denied the motion, holding that "Edwards’ present petition is identical to his Second Petition, which was denied by this Court in April 2019. This Court will not relitigate this issue and relies on the doctrine of the law of the case to deny Edwards’ request."

Edwards now appeals that ruling.

Analysis

Edwards argues the law of the case doctrine cannot be applied to preclude his request for new testing. He contends the district court lost jurisdiction over his case when he filed his notice of appeal in May 2018 and thus lacked jurisdiction to deny his November 2018 motion. For support, he cites the general rule that an appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction Over the case. See State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 749, 415 P.3d 430 (2018) ("Once the case is appealed and the appeal is docketed, the district court loses jurisdiction."). Second, he argues the statute does not restrict successive motions and does not say that res judicata or other preclusion principles apply to K.S.A. 21-2512 motions.

[1] Questions of jurisdiction, interpretation of statutes, and application of preclusion doctrines—all of which come into play in this analysis—present issues of law. State v. Smith, 311 Kan. 109, 111, 456 P.3d 1004 (2020); State v. Parry, 305 Kan. 1189, 1194, 390 P.3d 879 (2017). Exercising our do novo review of questions of law, we reject both of Edwards’ arguments.

The District Court had Jurisdiction over the 2018 Motion

[2] In Thurber, 313 Kan. 1002, 492 P.3d 1185, we rejected an argument like Edwards’. There, we held a district court did not lose jurisdiction over another defendant’s DNA testing motion even though an appeal was underway. The Thurber court, acknowledged the general rule, subject to several exceptions, that "‘once a district court enters a valid judgment and the time for appeal has expired, a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a postconviction motion. [Citations omitted.]’ State v. Smith, 309 Kan. 977, 981-82, 441 P.3d 1041 (2019)." Thurber, 313 Kan. at 1007, 492 P.3d 1185; but see Harsch v. Miller, 288 Kan. 280, 285-87, 200 P.3d 467 (2009) (listing cases where district courts retained jurisdiction over portions of case even while other parts were on appeal).

The Thurber court held the language of the DNA testing statute created an exception to that general rule:

"Twice,. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-2512 authorizes action ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law’—a phrase that, when combined with the absence of any limitation on the timing of a petition (’at any time after conviction’) or the timing of the district court’s authority to appoint counsel for a petitioner (’at any time’), leads us to conclude that the Legislature intended to carve out K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-2512 as a special extension of the district court’s jurisdiction." 313 Kan. at 1007, 492 P.3d 1185.

This holding suggests that the district court had jurisdiction over Edwards’ 2018 motion. But Edwards argues Thurber can be distinguished. He notes that Thurber involved a direct appeal raising issues separate from whether DNA testing should be performed. Here, both the appeal of his 2011 motion and his 2018 motion relate to DNA testing. He adds that "[n]owhere in the reasoning of Thurber is the suggestion that the district court retains jurisdiction of the same subject matter under appellate review." He also contends the general divestiture rule must apply when the subject of the appeal is also presented in the motion pending in the district court. Otherwise, conflicting rulings could result, creating...