The Kansas Court of Appeals recently affirmed the stalking convictions of Todd C. Hublein but vacated his sentence due to an error in calculating his criminal history score. The decision, filed on October 30, 2026, impacts Hublein, who was convicted of four counts of stalking and three counts of violating a protective order against his former romantic partner. This ruling highlights the importance of proper legal procedures in criminal cases and the implications of evidentiary errors on sentencing.

Hublein's case stemmed from a tumultuous relationship with a woman, referred to as Valerie, which ended when her safety became a concern. After their breakup, Valerie obtained a temporary protection from stalking order against Hublein, prohibiting him from contacting her or her family. Following the issuance of this order, Valerie and her family began receiving threatening messages that they believed were from Hublein. The case escalated to law enforcement, leading to Hublein's arrest and subsequent charges.

The court's ruling came after Hublein appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial court had improperly admitted evidence obtained from his cell phone and allowed a witness to testify remotely. He contended that these actions violated his constitutional rights and affected the jury's decision. The court, however, found that the evidence against him was sufficient to uphold the convictions, although it acknowledged an error in the calculation of his criminal history score.

Background

The parties involved in this case are the State of Kansas, represented by the prosecution, and Todd C. Hublein, the appellant. The dispute arose from Hublein's actions following the end of his relationship with Valerie, which led to her seeking legal protection against him. Valerie's allegations included receiving threatening messages that detailed personal information only someone close to her would know, leading her to believe Hublein was the source.

After a series of threatening communications, law enforcement was contacted, and Detective Braden Stewart was assigned to the case. He eventually arrested Hublein, who was found to have a cell phone containing evidence of his communications with Valerie. Hublein's defense argued that the evidence obtained from his phone should have been suppressed due to a lack of consent for the search, which was a key point in the appeal.

The Ruling

The Kansas Court of Appeals ruled on several key issues raised by Hublein. The court affirmed the convictions for stalking and violating the protective order, stating, "none of his guilt-phase based claims, viewed either independently or collectively, necessitate reversal of his convictions." However, the court found that the district court erred in including Hublein's prior South Dakota stalking conviction when calculating his criminal history score, leading to the decision to vacate his sentence.

The judges noted that Hublein had consented to the search of his phone, which yielded incriminating evidence. The court stated, "Hublein's primary position for this issue is an absence of consent," but concluded that his actions indicated otherwise. The court also addressed the remote testimony of Hublein's ex-wife, which was allowed under specific conditions, affirming that the trial court had not violated his confrontation rights.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Hublein, as it maintains his convictions but alters the terms of his sentencing. The decision to vacate his sentence due to the miscalculation of his criminal history score means that Hublein will have to be resentenced under the correct legal criteria. This case also underscores the importance of procedural accuracy in criminal trials, particularly regarding the admission of evidence and the rights of defendants.

Moreover, the court's affirmation of the stalking convictions reinforces the legal framework surrounding protective orders and the consequences of violating them. It highlights the seriousness with which courts treat stalking and related offenses, which can have severe impacts on victims.

What's Next

Following this ruling, Hublein's case will be remanded to the lower court for resentencing based on the corrected criminal history score. It remains to be seen if Hublein will pursue further appeals regarding the convictions themselves or other aspects of the case. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court's opinion.