State v. Barnes, 262 P.3d 297

Barnes was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault, with life and 14 months consecutive sentences.
He waived jury trial after two days of trial; the district court conducted extensive proceedings to ensure understanding and voluntariness.
Prior to trial, ComCare evaluated Barnes as competent to stand trial despite diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia and intermittent explosive disorder.
Wisner, a ComCare psychiatrist, opined premeditation was not possible due to Barnes’ mental state; the State did not present contrary psychiatric evidence.
Barnes argued mental disease or defect defense; the court admitted Wisner’s report and Billingsly’s interview transcript into evidence during bench trial.
The district court found Barnes competent to waive the jury, proceeded to bench trial, and Barnes admitted a psychiatric evaluation and a transcript into evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency to waive jury trial	Barnes' competence questioned; trial court should have ordered further evaluation.	Waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made given court’s record and Barnes' understanding.	Court did not abuse discretion; waiver knowingly and voluntarily.
Knowing and voluntary waiver of jury trial	Mental illness could undermine understanding of rights and waiver validity.	Record shows substantial understanding and voluntary choice.	Waiver supported by substantial competent evidence; valid.
Sufficiency of evidence of requisite mental state	Wisner's expert conflicted with eyewitness testimony; state failed to prove mens rea.	Evidence supports lack of premeditation due to mental disease; jurors could be persuaded otherwise.	Evidence adequate; factfinder could determine requisite mental state existed.
Reliance on criminal history score for sentencing	Apprendi requires jury finding for prior convictions used to enhance sentence.	No error; prior convictions not need a jury finding under existing law.	No error; use of criminal history score upheld.
Aggravated sentence for aggravated assault	Upper-range sentence factors must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.	Johnson v. State should be reconsidered.	Johnson approach reaffirmed; lower court decisions sustained.

State v. Clemons, 273 Kan. 328 (Kan. 2002) (waiver of jury trial reviewed for voluntariness with preserved arguments)
State v. Irving, 216 Kan. 588 (Kan. 1975) (early standard for knowing waiver and competency considerations)
Johnson v. State, 271 Kan. 534 (Kan. 2001) (substantial evidence supports jury waiver by borderline mental condition)
State v. Harkness, 252 Kan. 510 (Kan. 1993) (competency review not automatic; discretion to assess behavior)
State v. Foster, 290 Kan. 696 (Kan. 2010) (trial court duty to sua sponte address competency when doubts arise)
State v. Shopteese, 283 Kan. 331 (Kan. 2007) (due process considerations for competency and trial procedures)
State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (Kan. 2002) (Apprendi-like considerations for prior convictions in sentencing)
State v. Larraco, 32 Kan. App. 2d 996 (Kan. App. 2004) (waiver and competency discussions in appellate review)
State v. Pratt, 255 Kan. 767 (Kan. 1994) (sufficiency of evidence against expert testimony on intent)