 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Nash, No. 93,575,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court should have denied relief to a defendant seeking reversal of his aggravated robbery conviction on the basis that his sentence was illegal because such relief was not available under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3504; court affirmed district court judgment denying relief, however, because it reached right result, albeit for the wrong reason.
|
|||||
| State v. Pennington, No. 89,671,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because expert's testimony regarding defendant's mental condition did not demonstrate that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit the crimes charged, testimony did not, as a matter of law, support the mental disease or defect defense and was therefore irrelevant and inadmissible under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3220.
|
|||||
| State v. Robinson, No. 91,875,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was ordered to reimburse the State Board of Indigents' Defense Services (BIDS) following his conviction. Matter was remanded because district, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-4513, was required to consider defendant's financial resources, but a sentencing court's failure to include such consideration did not render sentence illegal.
|
|||||
| State v. Sanborn, No. 92,272,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unanimity instruction was not required because case against defendant was not multiple acts case; although both counts included multiple items of evidence, they did not include multiple acts because the items were not factually distinct; all of the items were drug paraphernalia and defendant was charged with possessing all of the paraphernalia.
|
|||||
| State v. Schoonover, No. 90,360,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applying Blockburger test to convictions arising from manufacture and possession of methamphetamine under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 65-4159 and 65-4160, while some of process could have occurred at another location, actions were part of one transaction of manufacturing methamphetamine, and the convictions arose from unitary conduct.
|
|||||
| State v. Stewart, No. 93,180,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of one count of riot in violation of Kan. Stat. § 21-4104 was affirmed because the statute did not require the State prove an agreement among the group members.
|
|||||
| State v. Swisher, No. 89,957,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though a motion to correct an illegal sentence was construed as one under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507, a decision to vacate a sentence in a drug case was improperly granted because this was not usually a procedural vehicle for claims not addressed on direct appeal; an evidentiary hearing was required to determine if counsel was ineffective.
|
|||||
| State v. Unruh, No. 90,498,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with manufacture of methamphetamine under, the fact that there was evidence to support conviction under alternative means did not convert case into multiple acts case because manufacturing was continuing course of conduct that could not be separated into distinct acts.
|
|||||
| Wenrich v. Emplrs Mut. Ins. Cos., No. 93,953,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, April 28, 2006, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding in favor of insureds on their claim for storm damage under their commercial property insurance policy was proper where the submission of a special verdict question regarding the application of the coinsurance provisions in the policy was not in error and was within the district court's discretion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
