Stolte Law, LLC was appointed to represent a man for a sentencing hearing after he was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and four counts of kidnapping. The State asked the Court to impose an 88-year sentence. Based on many factors learned from in-depth interviews, review of the case, and research on several legal issues, Stolte Law, LLC filed five motions challenging the State’s requested sentence. The Court granted one of the motions – cutting the sentence in half and giving the defendant a chance of freedom.
KU Student was charged with theft and minor traffic offenses in a local municipal court. After reviewing the evidence and discussing possible defenses and trial strategy, Client decided the best course of action was to quietly resolve the case with a diversion agreement, avoiding unwanted attention.
In a case where the only charge was DUI, officers failed to interview every witness to the alleged event. A witness indicated that client was sober upon arrival to her house and did not drink until after arriving. Somehow, the witness was not interviewed by police, so the fact did not appear in the police report. The prosecutor agreed to drop the DUI charge, without the need for a trial.
Two classification errors resulted in an original sentence of 357 months in state prison. Upon entry on the case, Attorney Adam D. Stolte argued federal and state case law required a 184-month corrected sentence. The district court agreed, taking nearly 14 years off client's sentence.
In a complicated case where the district court improperly failed to credit client's jail time, the COA reversed. On remand to the district court, the error was fixed resulting in appropriately adding 365 days to his time spent in custody.
During our initial interview, questioning of client revealed a chronic medical issue. The condition can present symptoms similar to DUI. After reviewing the videos, it was apparent that the medical condtion disguised itself as a DUI. Along with supporting medical research, Stolte Law, LLC presented the prosecutor with his trial plan to the prosecutor which included cross-examination of the officer’s failure to recognize the issue and medical expert testimony. The DUI charge was subsequently dismissed.
The police report in this case glazed over the actual arrest of client. Even so, complete review of the officer’s chest-cam video showed a significant constitutional violation. Despite the apparent violation, the prosecutor refused to dismiss. After filing a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence, Stolte Law, LLC questioned the officers on the stand and impeached their version of events. The court agreed that local police violated client's 4th amendment rights. The prosecutor appealed the case, but we prevailed.
Careful comparison of videos with police reports showed several inconsistencies violating client's Constitutional rights. After preparing thoughtful motions with thorough supporting legal research, the prosecutor dismissed the case - without the need for a trial.
The officer in this case said he saw client smoking from a marijuana pipe as he passed by. At jury trial, Stolte Law, LLC rigorously cross-examined the 30+ year officer’s version of events, cracking the officer’s tough, stoic demeanor. The jury evenly split with half electing a not-guilty verdict. Following the trial, the prosecutor offered a plea that client accepted.
Following a day-long domestic spat between client and her boyfriend, client left the house in her car. In doing so, she hit her boyfriend, killing him. Client’s voluntary manslaughter conviction was reversed because there was no legal basis for the State to argue that the defendant was engaged in a sudden quarrel.
While client was in custody, he filed multiple motions under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition on Detainers Act. The attorney who represented him on the motion in the district court misunderstood the effect of client’s motions. Although client correctly argued for his release, the district court, the prosecutor, and apparently his attorney failed to properly apply the law. Entering argument on appeal, Attorney Adam Stolte effectively advocated for client’s position, changing the mind of the appellate court, resulting in client’s release.
The District Court committed reversible error by instructing the jury in a confusing way. Because the State could not prove that the instructions were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges were reversed.
After the State repeatedly presented evidence that the defendant committed a prior crime, the District Court committed reversible error by failing to explain to the jury that the fact that a person committed one crime is irrelevant to prove he or she committed another crime.
On appeal, Attorney Adam Stolte argued that, in order to be convicted of aggravated burglary, a person has to break into a home when a person is present. In this case, when client entered the home, no other person was present. Upon leaving, the homeowners arrived, causing client to return into the home with them. The Court of Appeals agreed that there was no legal basis to support an aggravated burglary charge.
In a case featured on 48Hours and routine appearance in statewide newspapers, extensive review of a complex and voluminous record revealed that the prosecutor lied to the jury. Finding the actions to be more than mere error and extremely prejudicial to the defendant, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed two murder convictions and remanded the case for a new trial.
In Kansas, the extent of punishments for felony charges is dependent on your prior criminal history. Prior felonies generally increase the punishment, but prior person felonies greatly increase the punishment for current charges. Basing the argument off key federal caselaw, Attorney Adam Stolte argued that certain prior person felonies should not be used to increase client’s current sentence. In some cases, this resulted in the immediate release of client from prison.
In a seminal Kansas DUI case, Attorney Adam Stolte argued at the Kansas Court of Appeals that some prior Missouri DUI’s cannot be used to enhance client’s sentence. For client, and others across Kansas, this resulted in reduced fines, reduced jail time, and reduced supervision. Attorney Adam Stolte regularly receives inquiries and referrals from attorneys to reduce their client’s DUI charges.
Client was pulled over on her twenty-first birthday for crossing the center line one time to avoid an accident with a semi. Attorney Adam D. Stolte argued that client should not have been stopped in the first place, not to mention being charged with DUI for two reasons. For starters, Kansas statutes permit crossing the centerline to avoid an accident. Secondly, DUI caselaw also permits drivers to leave their lane to avoid an obstruction. Because of the possible accident with the semi caused client to leave her lane and cross the centerline, the prosecutor dropped the case without the need for a trial.
In Kansas, nonresidents who are (1) over 16, (2) in the United States on a visa, and (3) have a valid driver’s license may drive on Kansas roads without the need to obtain a Kansas driver’s license. Client correctly argued to the prosecutor that Kansas statutes applied in his case, but the prosecutor did not dismiss the driving without a license charge. Attorney Adam D. Stolte intervened, explaining the law to the prosecutor. The charge was dismissed without the need for a hearing.
