State v. Cooper

── State v. Cooper ── Court: Supreme Court of Kansas Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 127,805 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JORDYN LAMONT COOPER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. When a trial proceeds on stipulated facts, appellate courts conduct a de novo review for sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the State. When reviewing stipulated facts, the appellate court cannot ignore the circumstantial evidence presented by the stipulations and the inferences deducible therefrom. 2. By entering into a stipulation of facts, the defendant is precluded from disputing the factual evidence contained in the stipulation. Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed February 14, 2025. Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; ROBERT A. MARTINEZ and JENNIFER MYERS, judges. Oral argument held December 15, 2025. Opinion filed May 15, 2026. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed. James M. Latta, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant. 1  Garett C. Relph, deputy district attorney, argued the cause, and Kayla L. Roehler, deputy district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee. The opinion of the court was delivered by STEGALL, J.: Jordyn Lamont Cooper filed a petition for review with this court challenging his convictions for felony theft of a 2021 Kia Telluride and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. We granted Cooper's petition, in part, to consider his arguments challenging the Court of Appeals' decision affirming his felony theft conviction. See State v. Cooper, No. 127,805, 2025 WL 503266, at *4 (Kan. App. 2025) (unpublished opinion). Though our reasoning ultimately differs from that of the panel's, we affirm the judgment. State v. Unruh, 320 Kan. 260, 261, 565 P.3d 825 (2025) (affirming Court of Appeals as right for the wrong reason). FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2021, the State charged Cooper with felony theft of a 2021 Kia Telluride. As a result, Cooper entered into a diversion agreement with the State and made certain material factual stipulations. One of those factual stipulations was that "Cable Dahmer Kia" was the "owner" of the stolen vehicle. The district court properly held a diversion hearing and confirmed that Cooper understood the charges against him and the potential consequences of signing a diversion agreement. One consequence is that, if the defendant fails to fulfill the terms of the diversion agreement and the criminal proceedings on the complaint are resumed, those criminal proceedings "shall be conducted on the record of the stipulation of facts relating to the complaint." K.S.A. 22- 2909(e). 2  Over a year later, the State filed a motion to revoke Cooper's diversion based on his failure to comply with its terms and conditions. The State alleged Cooper had failed to pay fees, failed to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation, and failed to maintain employment or enrollment in school. Cooper later stipulated to these violations. In February 2024, the district court revoked his diversion agreement and found him guilty of felony theft based on the stipulations made in the diversion agreement. Cooper was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for theft, but the district court suspended the sentence and granted Cooper 24 months' probation. Cooper was also o