Sign Up for Vincent AI
State v. Looney
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Jeffrey Syrios, judge.
Mark Sevart, of Derby, for appellant.
Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before Green, P.J., Malone, J., and McAnany, S.J.
Following remand for resentencing from this court's decision in State v. Looney, No. 117, 398, 2018 WL 3485727, at *1 (Kan. App. 2018) (unpublished opinion) (Looney I), the trial court denied Looney's renewed request for a downward durational departure and refused to consider Looney's new trial motion under a belief that its consideration violated the Looney I mandate. Looney now appeals those decisions.
As to the denial of his downward durational departure motion Looney argues that certain mitigating factors established that the trial court should have granted his downward durational departure motion at resentencing. Yet, for each of his convictions, the trial court imposed presumptive sentences under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA). Because this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the denial of a departure motion when the trial court imposes KSGA presumptive sentences, this issue is not properly before this court. State v. Huerta, 291 Kan. 831, 836, 247 P.3d 1043 (2011). Thus, we dismiss this argument for a lack of jurisdiction.
As to the trial court refusing to consider his new trial motion upon remand, Looney's new trial motion hinged on our Supreme Court's holding in State v. Hardy, 305 Kan. 1001, 390 P.3d 30 (2017), that trial courts should not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State when reviewing a defendant's immunity motion. Our Supreme Court issued this holding while Looney's case was pending before this court in Looney I. And it is undisputed that in denying Looney's pretrial immunity motion, the trial court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Thus, in moving for a new trial upon remand Looney asked the trial court to reconsider the denial of his immunity motion under this intervening change of law. As he did below, Looney asserts that the Looney I mandate did not prevent him from making a new trial motion upon remand.
Nevertheless for reasons stated below, Looney's argument about the trial court's refusal to consider his new trial motion upon remand is unpersuasive. So we affirm because the trial court did not err by refusing to consider Looney's new trial motion or, if it was error, the error was harmless. Thus, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
On July 28, 2015, the State charged Looney with the following: (1) the aggravated battery of Breanna Connell; (2) the aggravated battery of Quinten Edwards; (3) the aggravated battery of Davis McCoy; (4) the aggravated assault of Sean O'Neil (5) the aggravated assault of Christian Wells; (6) animal cruelty; and (7) criminal possession of a firearm. Later, the State also charged Looney with criminal discharge of a firearm.
The State's charges against Looney stemmed from his violent altercation with his then-fianceé Connell and her friends-Edwards, McCoy, O'Neil, and Wells-late in the evening of July 23, 2015, and early in the morning of July 24, 2015. It is undisputed that during the evening of July 23, 2015, while at a bar with Connell and her friends, Looney sprayed mace in Connell's face, which resulted in his removal from the bar. Afterwards, Looney returned to his and Connell's shared home while Connell remained at the bar with her friends. Upon arriving home, Looney threw his and Connell's cat Nola against a wall so hard that he broke Nola's back, resulting in Nola's death. Looney ultimately pleaded guilty to animal cruelty for killing Nola; thus, this fact is undisputed.
Notwithstanding the preceding, sometime after killing Nola, in the early morning hours of July 24, 2015, Connell's friends dropped her off at her and Looney's shared home. At the jury trial on Looney's remaining charges, Connell and her friends testified that Looney started a fight by threatening Connell with his gun. Looney, on the other hand, testified that he never threatened Connell with his gun. Instead, Looney alleged that he had his gun with him because he had been contemplating suicide following his clash with Connell at the bar. Also, he alleged that he acted in self-defense and in defense-of-others, that is, defense-of-Connell, during the dispute that ensued between him and Connell's friends.
In Looney's initial appeal to this court, this court summarized Connell's and Looney's different versions of events as follows:
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting