 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Brown, No. 92,413,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for discharge was properly denied because but for defendant's successful request for a continuance, he would have been brought to trial within 90-day period mandated by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3402(1); the appropriate commencement date for computing delay caused by continuance was the date the motion for the continuance was granted.
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, No. 95,339,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State moved to amend information several times, and last oral motion was not followed by a writing. Following his conviction for first degree murder, defendant filed a motion to correct allegedly illegal sentence. Defendant was not entitled to relief because Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3504 did not provide a means for a collateral attack of a conviction.
|
|||||
| State v. Denney, No. 95,495,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy, aggravated battery, and aggravated sexual battery. Defendant demanded DNA testing. Trial court did not err in dismissing defendant's pro se motion because, under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-2512(f)(1), when the test results were unfavorable to a defendant, the petition was required to be dismissed.
|
|||||
| State v. Gaither, No. 93,489,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Joinder of offenses did not violate Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3202(1) because charges of attempted murder and felony murder were of the same or similar character, as both victims were drug dealers, both shootings involved defendant's quest for drugs, and both victims were shot in the chest with a nine mm handgun.
|
|||||
| State v. Harp, No. 94,322,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's sentence conformed to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-4159 as to its character and term of punishment, and the sentence was not ambiguous, relief was not available under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3504. However, because defendant was not advised of his right to appeal, his direct appeal of his sentence was properly before the appellate court.
|
|||||
| State v. Johnson, No. 91,867,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for aggravated indecent solicitation under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3511(a) was reversed as void because the charge was not specifically stated in the complaint and was not a lesser included offense of the original charge, aggravated indecent liberties with a child under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3504(a)(3)(A).
|
|||||
| State v. Lee, No. 95,348,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant consented to a pat-down search for weapons during a consensual encounter with two police officers, suppression of evidence was warranted under the Fourth Amendment and Kan. Const. Bill Rights § 15 because an officer exceeded the scope of the search when he removed a plastic baggie from defendant's pocket without probable cause.
|
|||||
| State v. McKissack, No. 93,670,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a criminal deprivation of property case, because the information failed to charge defendant with criminal deprivation of property, and because it was not a lesser included offense of theft (which was in the information), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict defendant of criminal deprivation of property under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3705.
|
|||||
| State v. Thomas, No. 95,733,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 27, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court properly remanded defendant's case for resentencing under McAdam where a trial judge had failed to inform defendant of his right to appeal his sentence; defendant's appeal was subject to law in effect at the time of its granting rather than the law in effect when defendant should have filed his direct appeal and during its pendency.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
