 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Moses, No. 94,113,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to first-degree murder and aggravated robbery was proper as there was an unexplained delay of 12 years in raising the Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3210 challenge, the State would have been prejudiced if it had to retry the case, and defendant understood the consequences of his pleas.
|
|||||
| State v. Rojas, No. 93,444,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence because the failure of the sentencing court to make findings under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4606, did not render the sentence illegal under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3504.
|
|||||
| State v. Ross, No. 92,478,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for murder and attempted murder were affirmed because the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of his gang affiliation or that he fled the state, and defendant's criminal history score did not have to be found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury to satisfy the Apprendi rule.
|
|||||
| State v. Swinney, Nos. 91,042, 91,120,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving multiple counts of drug possession and manufacturing, denial of defendants' motion to suppress was proper and did not violate Kan. Const. Bill Rights § 15 as the open fields doctrine supported the incriminating surveillance conducted, and the surveillance led to defendants' arrests and the seizure of additional damning evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Synoracki, No. 93,445,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an attempted first-degree murder case where defendant was given an indeterminate sentence of 10 years to life, the fact that only one of the components of the Apprendi rule was implicated by the sentencing statute was not a reason to apply a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to the due process component.
|
|||||
| State v. Trotter, No. 91,251,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant did not request an eyewitness instruction, trial court did not commit clear error in not giving the instruction because previous case law did require it when not requested, and defense counsel thoroughly attacked the identification.
|
|||||
| State v. Vann, No. 91,214,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the defendant entered a convenience store and fired several shots, he was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and related offenses; a jury unanimity instruction was not required. However, the denial of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and right to self-representation warranted reversal of his convictions.
|
|||||
| State v. Wendler, No. 89,568,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, February 3, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to resentencing under State v. McAdam and Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4721(e)(3) where his case was still on direct appeal by the time McAdam was decided by the Kansas Supreme Court, even though the appeal had been filed by the State and defendant had not cross-appealed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
