first prong test in Kansas

2024As for the first prong of the analysis, if the convictions are not based on the same conduct, the analysis ends. 281 Kan. at 496-97 .

2024To determine whether the convictions are based on the same conduct, courts look to: "(1) whether the acts occur at or near the same time; (2) whether the acts occur at the same location; (3) whether there is a causal relationship between the acts, in particular whether there was an intervening event; and (4) whether there is a fresh impulse motivating some of the conduct." 281 Kan. 453 , Syl. ¶ 16.

2007Applying the first prong of our standard of review, we must determine “(1) Did the trial judge have a duty to recuse himself or herself from this case because the judge was biased, prejudicial, or partial?” Alderson, 260 Kan. 445 , Syl. ¶ 2.

2006The standard of review for a claim of error relating to a motion for change of judge is set forth in State v. Alderson, 260 Kan. 445 , Syl. ¶ 2, 922 P.2d 435 (1996), as follows: “When a district court refuses to recuse itself from a trial upon the defendant’s request, this court has promulgated a two-part test to determine whether the defendant received a fair trial or whether the defendant’s due process rights were violated: (1) Did the trial judge have a duty to recuse himself or herself from this case because the judge was biased, prejudicial, or partial? (2) If the judge did have a duty to

2024Under that test we examine "'whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the "same offense" and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution.'" 281 Kan. at 467 (quoting United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S. Ct. 2849 , 125 L.

2024Under that test we examine "'whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the "same offense" and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution.'" 281 Kan. at 467 (quoting United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S. Ct. 2849 , 125 L.

2022For Father to succeed on appeal, he has the burden to establish ineffective assistance by showing (1) trial counsel's deficient performance; and (2) "prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance." Salary, 309 Kan. at 483 . 4 Father cannot establish the first prong of his claim, deficient performance.

2021State v. Kelly, 298 Kan. 965, 969 , 318 P.3d 987 (2014).

2021State v. Kelly, 298 Kan. 965, 969 , 318 P.3d 987 (2014).

2021The Neighbors court refined the prior test for applying the emergency aid exception in Kansas and held the exception permits a warrantless search when: (1) law enforcement officers enter the premises with an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside is seriously injured or imminently threatened with serious injury; and (2) the manner and scope of any ensuing search once inside the premises is reasonable. 299 Kan. at 249 . 12 As for the first prong of the test, the Neighbors court found the "officers knew an unresponsive male was seen lying on the couch and could not be awakened by

2021This was sufficient to establish an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside the apartment could be seriously injured." 299 Kan. at 249 .

2021According to our Supreme Court in Injured Workers of Kansas v. Franklin, 262 Kan. 840, 854 , 942 P.2d 591 (1997), the following two-step test should be utilized when determining whether a due process violation exists: "'If a remedy protected by due process is abrogated or restricted by the legislature, "such change is constitutional if '[1] the change is reasonably necessary in the public interest to promote the general welfare of the people of the state,' and [2] the legislature provides an adequate substitute remedy" to replace the remedy which has been restricted.'[Citations omitted.]" 6 Va

2021According to our Supreme Court in Injured Workers of Kansas v. Franklin, 262 Kan. 840, 854 , 942 P.2d 591 (1997), the following two-step test should be utilized when determining whether a due process violation exists: "'If a remedy protected by due process is abrogated or restricted by the legislature, "such change is constitutional if '[1] the change is reasonably necessary in the public interest to promote the general welfare of the people of the state,' and [2] the legislature provides an adequate substitute remedy" to replace the remedy which has been restricted.'[Citations omitted.]" 6 Va

2020To make this determination, the State or other public entity "may rely on the reasonable assessments of its own professionals in determining whether an individual 'meets the essential eligibility requirements' for habilitation in a community-based program." 527 U.S. at 602 .

2018Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 , reh. denied 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed.2d 864 (1984) ; see also Chamberlain v. State , 236 Kan. 650 , 656-57, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting Strickland ). " 'The first prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel requires a defendant to show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard **853 of reasonableness, considering all the circumstances.

2017A suspect who previously invoked his right to counsel initiates further conversation about an investigation when his statements can be "fairly said to represent a desire . . . to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation." Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1045 .

2016To make that determination, the appellate court must consider whether the subject instruction was legally and factually appropriate, employing an unlimited review of the entire record." Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 4; see State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 160-63 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012) (referring to legal appropriateness 103 and factual appropriateness as separate tests, resulting in a four-part test—preservation, legal appropriateness, factual appropriateness, and reversibility).

2013Thompson v. State, 293 Kan. 704, 715 , 270 P.3d 1089 (2011). “ ‘The first prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel requires a defendant to show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, considering all the circumstances.

2013Thompson v. State, 293 Kan. 704, 715 , 270 P.3d 1089 (2011). “ ‘The first prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel requires a defendant to show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, considering all the circumstances.

2011State v. Mathis, 281 Kan. 99, 109 , 130 P.3d 14 (2006).

2011State v. Mathis, 281 Kan. 99, 109 , 130 P.3d 14 (2006).

2008State v. DeMarco, 263 Kan. 727, 734 , 952 P.2d 1276 (1998).

2008State v. DeMarco, 263 Kan. 727, 734 , 952 P.2d 1276 (1998).

2006The standard of review for a claim of error relating to a motion for change of judge is set forth in State v. Alderson, 260 Kan. 445 , Syl. ¶ 2, 922 P.2d 435 (1996), as follows: “When a district court refuses to recuse itself from a trial upon the defendant’s request, this court has promulgated a two-part test to determine whether the defendant received a fair trial or whether the defendant’s due process rights were violated: (1) Did the trial judge have a duty to recuse himself or herself from this case because the judge was biased, prejudicial, or partial? (2) If the judge did have a duty to

2006The standard of review for a claim of error relating to a motion for change of judge is set forth in State v. Alderson, 260 Kan. 445 , Syl. ¶ 2, 922 P.2d 435 (1996), as follows: “When a district court refuses to recuse itself from a trial upon the defendant’s request, this court has promulgated a two-part test to determine whether the defendant received a fair trial or whether the defendant’s due process rights were violated: (1) Did the trial judge have a duty to recuse himself or herself from this case because the judge was biased, prejudicial, or partial? (2) If the judge did have a duty to

2005Scott, 271 Kan. at 114 .

2004See, e.g., Tosh, 278 Kan. at 90-91 ; State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 82 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004).

2004See, e.g., Tosh, 278 Kan. at 90-91 ; State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 82 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004).

2000Under the first prong of the test, it must be shown that counsel’s performance fell below the standard of reasonableness. 257 Kan. at 223 .

2000“Defense counsel has an obligation to advise a defendant as to the range of permissible penalties and to discuss the possible choices available to the defendant.” 257 Kan. at 223 .

1991If it is, then it is a lesser included offense within the meaning of subparagraph (2)(d).” 242 Kan. at 23-24 . *435 Under the first prong of this test, battery is not a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery for the reason stated in State v. Warwick.

1978Washington, 206 Kan. *12 336, 479 P.2d 833 ; State v. Brown, 181 Kan. 375 , 312 P.2d 832 ; State v. Terry, 202 Kan. 599 , 451 P.2d 211 ), the inquiry in this case focuses on whether the witness was unavailable.

1978Washington, 206 Kan. *12 336, 479 P.2d 833 ; State v. Brown, 181 Kan. 375 , 312 P.2d 832 ; State v. Terry, 202 Kan. 599 , 451 P.2d 211 ), the inquiry in this case focuses on whether the witness was unavailable.

1978Washington, 206 Kan. *12 336, 479 P.2d 833 ; State v. Brown, 181 Kan. 375 , 312 P.2d 832 ; State v. Terry, 202 Kan. 599 , 451 P.2d 211 ), the inquiry in this case focuses on whether the witness was unavailable.