Updated on February 27, 2025
Innocent on Paper, Guilty at Heart Kansas Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Actual Innocence” for Wrongful Conviction Actions
In re Wrongful Conviction of Warsame, No. 126,950, 2025 WL 496667 (Kan. Feb. 14, 2025).
Author: Peyton Emler, Staff Editor
Issue: Can a claimant receive wrongful conviction compensation if they are found guilty of the statutory elements of the charged crime, but where the state dismisses the conviction due to the misidentification of victims?
Answer: No. To receive compensation, claimants must prove (1) actual innocence of the statutory elements of the charged crime, and (2) that such a finding caused the State to dismiss charges.
Facts: Sharmarke Warsame was convicted of felony identity theft for knowingly using stolen credit cards to buy Target gift cards. Warsame testified using the stolen cards was “all [his] fault.” The State charged Warsame with intending to defraud the credit card holders. On appeal, after Warsame served 564 days in prison, the parties agreed to vacate and dismiss the convictions because the state listed the credit card holders as victims instead of Target.
Warsame then sued for wrongful conviction under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-5004(c)(1), arguing he was innocent because he did not intend to defraud the credit card holders. The district court ruled against Warsame, holding he failed to prove his actual innocence based on the crimes as charged.
Discussion: To succeed under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-5004(c)(1), a claimant must prove, in relevant part, actual innocence of the statutory elements of the charged crime and that they later obtained a reversal, dismissal, or not guilty verdict. Following In re Doelz, Kansas also requires proof that the State’s dismissal stemmed from the claimant’s actual innocence.
The Court clarified that “actual innocence” means innocence of the statutory elements of the crime, not innocence under the specific facts alleged. Because Warsame admitted he intended to defraud someone,[1] he could not establish actual innocence. The Court also agreed that the State’s motivation to dismiss stemmed from misidentified victims, not Warsame’s innocence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of relief.
Key Authorities: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-5004(c)(1)(C) (Supp. 2023); In re Doelz, 553 P.3d 969 (Kan. 2024); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6107(a)(1).
[1] Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6107(a)(1) defines identity fraud as “using . . . personal identifying information . . . belonging to . . . another person, with the intent to: (1) Defraud that person, or anyone else . . . .”
