Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
29 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 15 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Van Cleavegreen2 sentences2026Whether to remand a case for a Van Cleave hearing lies within the sound discretion of the appellate court. 239 Kan. at 120 . 2026Whether to remand a case for a Van Cleave hearing lies within the sound discretion of the appellate court. 239 Kan. at 120 . | 9 | 20 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2024The Hilyard court reiterated its prior, related holdings: "'Although "there are circumstances when no evidentiary record need be established, when the merit or lack of merit of an ineffectiveness claim about trial counsel is obvious," and an ineffectiveness claim can therefore be resolved when raised for the first time on appeal, these circumstances are "extremely rare." Rowland [v. State], 289 Kan. [1076] at 1084-85 [ 219 P.3d 1212 (2009)]; see also State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 , 253 P.3d 341 (2011) (declining to consider ineffective assistance claims for first time on direct appeal; declining 2022"Although 'there are circumstances when no evidentiary record need be established, when the merit or lack of merit of an ineffectiveness claim about trial counsel is obvious,' and an ineffectiveness claim can therefore be resolved when raised for the first time on appeal, these circumstances are 'extremely rare.' Rowland, 289 Kan. at 1084-85 ; see also State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 , 253 P.3d 341 (2011) (declining to consider ineffective assistance claims for first time on direct appeal; declining to remand for Van Cleave hearing based on defendant's failure to meet minimal requirements); Laymon | 4 | 5 |
State v. Levygreen2 sentences2024The Hilyard court reiterated its prior, related holdings: "'Although "there are circumstances when no evidentiary record need be established, when the merit or lack of merit of an ineffectiveness claim about trial counsel is obvious," and an ineffectiveness claim can therefore be resolved when raised for the first time on appeal, these circumstances are "extremely rare." Rowland [v. State], 289 Kan. [1076] at 1084-85 [ 219 P.3d 1212 (2009)]; see also State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 , 253 P.3d 341 (2011) (declining to consider ineffective assistance claims for first time on direct appeal; declining 2024The Hilyard court reiterated its prior, related holdings: "'Although "there are circumstances when no evidentiary record need be established, when the merit or lack of merit of an ineffectiveness claim about trial counsel is obvious," and an ineffectiveness claim can therefore be resolved when raised for the first time on appeal, these circumstances are "extremely rare." Rowland [v. State], 289 Kan. [1076] at 1084-85 [ 219 P.3d 1212 (2009)]; see also State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 , 253 P.3d 341 (2011) (declining to consider ineffective assistance claims for first time on direct appeal; declining | 4 | 4 |
State v. Dullgreen2 sentences2024Like the situation here, Hilyard's appellate counsel did not request a Van Cleave hearing, which was ultimately fatal to his claim on appeal: "When appellate counsel does not request a hearing, this court need not order a Van Cleave remand sua sponte." Hilyard, 316 Kan. at 338; see State v. Dull, 298 Kan. 832, 839-40 , 317 P.3d 104 (2014) (declining to remand because of appellate counsel's apparently deliberate decision not to seek a Van Cleave hearing, even though at least one of the defendant's arguments may require an evidentiary hearing to resolve it). 2024Like the situation here, Hilyard's appellate counsel did not request a Van Cleave hearing, which was ultimately fatal to his claim on appeal: "When appellate counsel does not request a hearing, this court need not order a Van Cleave remand sua sponte." Hilyard, 316 Kan. at 338; see State v. Dull, 298 Kan. 832, 839-40 , 317 P.3d 104 (2014) (declining to remand because of appellate counsel's apparently deliberate decision not to seek a Van Cleave hearing, even though at least one of the defendant's arguments may require an evidentiary hearing to resolve it). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Reedgreen2 sentences2026As a result, when a defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for the first time on direct appeal, appellate courts have three options: (1) Follow the general rule and refuse to address the issue, allowing the defendant to pursue relief through a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion; (2) rule on the merits in the "extremely rare" cases that there is a sufficient record to do so; or (3) remand the case for a Van Cleave hearing "so that facts relevant to determination of the legal issue may be developed and an evidentiary record established." Rowland, 289 Kan. at 1084-85 ; see State v. Reed, 2026As a result, when a defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for the first time on direct appeal, appellate courts have three options: (1) Follow the general rule and refuse to address the issue, allowing the defendant to pursue relief through a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion; (2) rule on the merits in the "extremely rare" cases that there is a sufficient record to do so; or (3) remand the case for a Van Cleave hearing "so that facts relevant to determination of the legal issue may be developed and an evidentiary record established." Rowland, 289 Kan. at 1084-85 ; see State v. Reed, | 2 | 2 |
Rowland v. Stategreen2 sentences2026As a result, when a defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for the first time on direct appeal, appellate courts have three options: (1) Follow the general rule and refuse to address the issue, allowing the defendant to pursue relief through a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion; (2) rule on the merits in the "extremely rare" cases that there is a sufficient record to do so; or (3) remand the case for a Van Cleave hearing "so that facts relevant to determination of the legal issue may be developed and an evidentiary record established." Rowland, 289 Kan. at 1084-85 ; see State v. Reed, 2026As a result, when a defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for the first time on direct appeal, appellate courts have three options: (1) Follow the general rule and refuse to address the issue, allowing the defendant to pursue relief through a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion; (2) rule on the merits in the "extremely rare" cases that there is a sufficient record to do so; or (3) remand the case for a Van Cleave hearing "so that facts relevant to determination of the legal issue may be developed and an evidentiary record established." Rowland, 289 Kan. at 1084-85 ; see State v. Reed, | 1 | 6 |
State v. Hilyardgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Hilyard, 316 Kan. 326 , 338, 515 P.3d 267 (2022); State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 120-21 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986). 2022See State v. Hilyard, 316 Kan. 326 , 338, 515 P.3d 267 (2022); State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 120-21 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Spraguegreen2 sentences2019See State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 425 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015) ("When a litigant fails to adequately brief an issue it is deemed abandoned."); Supreme Court Rule 8.03(b)(6)(C)(i) (2019 Kan. 2019See State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 425 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015) ("When a litigant fails to adequately brief an issue it is deemed abandoned."); Supreme Court Rule 8.03(b)(6)(C)(i) (2019 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2013Or, in the alternative, he could have requested remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing under State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 119-21 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986) (appellate court discretion to remand ineffective assistance of counsel allegations in a direct appeal); see State v. Jenkins, 257 Kan. 1074, 1079-80 , 898 P.2d 1121 (1995); see also Galaviz, 296 Kan. at 194 (“Galaviz has not requested a Van Cleave hearing. 2013Or, in the alternative, he could have requested remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing under State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 119-21 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986) (appellate court discretion to remand ineffective assistance of counsel allegations in a direct appeal); see State v. Jenkins, 257 Kan. 1074, 1079-80 , 898 P.2d 1121 (1995); see also Galaviz, 296 Kan. at 194 (“Galaviz has not requested a Van Cleave hearing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Galavizgreen2 sentences2013Or, in the alternative, he could have requested remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing under State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 119-21 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986) (appellate court discretion to remand ineffective assistance of counsel allegations in a direct appeal); see State v. Jenkins, 257 Kan. 1074, 1079-80 , 898 P.2d 1121 (1995); see also Galaviz, 296 Kan. at 194 (“Galaviz has not requested a Van Cleave hearing. 2013Or, in the alternative, he could have requested remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing under State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 119-21 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986) (appellate court discretion to remand ineffective assistance of counsel allegations in a direct appeal); see State v. Jenkins, 257 Kan. 1074, 1079-80 , 898 P.2d 1121 (1995); see also Galaviz, 296 Kan. at 194 (“Galaviz has not requested a Van Cleave hearing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Henrygreen2 sentences2004See State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , 44 P.3d 466 (2002) (if the mental defect or disease was such that it negated the mens rea element of the crime). 2004See State v. Henry, 273 Kan. 608 , 44 P.3d 466 (2002) (if the mental defect or disease was such that it negated the mens rea element of the crime). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Laymon v. State
green
2 sentences2024The Hilyard court reiterated its prior, related holdings: "'Although "there are circumstances when no evidentiary record need be established, when the merit or lack of merit of an ineffectiveness claim about trial counsel is obvious," and an ineffectiveness claim can therefore be resolved when raised for the first time on appeal, these circumstances are "extremely rare." Rowland [v. State], 289 Kan. [1076] at 1084-85 [ 219 P.3d 1212 (2009)]; see also State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 , 253 P.3d 341 (2011) (declining to consider ineffective assistance claims for first time on direct appeal; declining 2024The Hilyard court reiterated its prior, related holdings: "'Although "there are circumstances when no evidentiary record need be established, when the merit or lack of merit of an ineffectiveness claim about trial counsel is obvious," and an ineffectiveness claim can therefore be resolved when raised for the first time on appeal, these circumstances are "extremely rare." Rowland [v. State], 289 Kan. [1076] at 1084-85 [ 219 P.3d 1212 (2009)]; see also State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 , 253 P.3d 341 (2011) (declining to consider ineffective assistance claims for first time on direct appeal; declining | 5 | 2009–2024 |
Rice v. State
green
2 sentences2010Rice, 37 Kan. 2009App. 2d 456, 464-65 , 154 P.3d 537 , rev. denied 284 Kan. 946 (2007) (defendant who received Van Cleave hearing during direct appeal on claim of ineffective assistance barred from relitigating any arguments on ineffective assistance in later K.S.A. 60-1507 motion). | 2 | 2009–2010 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
2 sentences2022Glasgow alleges that Eckelman's performance during and around the Van Cleave hearing was deficient because she failed to: • follow up on a subpoena issued to S.G.'s school about an injury she suffered; • elicit testimony about K.G.'s custody matters; • hire an investigator to interview S.G.'s mother; and • file motions under Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S. Ct. 1774 , 12 L. 2022Glasgow alleges that Eckelman's performance during and around the Van Cleave hearing was deficient because she failed to: • follow up on a subpoena issued to S.G.'s school about an injury she suffered; • elicit testimony about K.G.'s custody matters; • hire an investigator to interview S.G.'s mother; and • file motions under Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S. Ct. 1774 , 12 L. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Chamberlain v. State
green
2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 674 (1984), adopted by Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650, 656-57 , 694 P.2d 468 (1985), given the lack of request for a Van Cleave hearing and Mother's failure to analyze the merits of the claim in her brief. 2022Ed. 2d 674 (1984), adopted by Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650, 656-57 , 694 P.2d 468 (1985), given the lack of request for a Van Cleave hearing and Mother's failure to analyze the merits of the claim in her brief. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2022"Although 'there are circumstances when no evidentiary record need be established, when the merit or lack of merit of an ineffectiveness claim about trial counsel is obvious,' and an ineffectiveness claim can therefore be resolved when raised for the first time on appeal, these circumstances are 'extremely rare.' Rowland, 289 Kan. at 1084-85 ; see also State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 , 253 P.3d 341 (2011) (declining to consider ineffective assistance claims for first time on direct appeal; declining to remand for Van Cleave hearing based on defendant's failure to meet minimal requirements); Laymon 2022"Although 'there are circumstances when no evidentiary record need be established, when the merit or lack of merit of an ineffectiveness claim about trial counsel is obvious,' and an ineffectiveness claim can therefore be resolved when raised for the first time on appeal, these circumstances are 'extremely rare.' Rowland, 289 Kan. at 1084-85 ; see also State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379 , 253 P.3d 341 (2011) (declining to consider ineffective assistance claims for first time on direct appeal; declining to remand for Van Cleave hearing based on defendant's failure to meet minimal requirements); Laymon | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Gregg
green
2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 908 (1964) and State v. Gregg, 226 Kan. 481 , 602 P.2d 85 (1979). 2022Ed. 2d 908 (1964) and State v. Gregg, 226 Kan. 481 , 602 P.2d 85 (1979). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Moyer
green
2 sentences2019Therefore, this court remanded for a Van Cleave hearing to determine whether Moyer was denied *835 his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 306 Kan. at 383 -85 , 410 P.3d 71 . 2019Therefore, this court remanded for a Van Cleave hearing to determine whether Moyer was denied *835 his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 306 Kan. at 383 -85 , 410 P.3d 71 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hall
red
2 sentences2019This, he continues, would have resulted in dismissal of the lesser included offense of kidnapping, which was the crime the jury convicted him of. 21 Additional facts The amended charging document stated: "That on or about the 3rd day of May, 2013, in Lyon County, Kansas, Samuel Lee Anthony Harris, then and there being present did unlawfully and feloniously take or confine a person, to wit: Victoria Gomez Lujan, accomplished by force, threat or deception and with the intent to hold said person to inflict bodily injury or to terrorize the victim or another; or to facilitate flight or the commiss 2019This, he continues, would have resulted in dismissal of the lesser included offense of kidnapping, which was the crime the jury convicted him of. 21 Additional facts The amended charging document stated: "That on or about the 3rd day of May, 2013, in Lyon County, Kansas, Samuel Lee Anthony Harris, then and there being present did unlawfully and feloniously take or confine a person, to wit: Victoria Gomez Lujan, accomplished by force, threat or deception and with the intent to hold said person to inflict bodily injury or to terrorize the victim or another; or to facilitate flight or the commiss | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2019This, he continues, would have resulted in dismissal of the lesser included offense of kidnapping, which was the crime the jury convicted him of. 21 Additional facts The amended charging document stated: "That on or about the 3rd day of May, 2013, in Lyon County, Kansas, Samuel Lee Anthony Harris, then and there being present did unlawfully and feloniously take or confine a person, to wit: Victoria Gomez Lujan, accomplished by force, threat or deception and with the intent to hold said person to inflict bodily injury or to terrorize the victim or another; or to facilitate flight or the commiss 2019This, he continues, would have resulted in dismissal of the lesser included offense of kidnapping, which was the crime the jury convicted him of. 21 Additional facts The amended charging document stated: "That on or about the 3rd day of May, 2013, in Lyon County, Kansas, Samuel Lee Anthony Harris, then and there being present did unlawfully and feloniously take or confine a person, to wit: Victoria Gomez Lujan, accomplished by force, threat or deception and with the intent to hold said person to inflict bodily injury or to terrorize the victim or another; or to facilitate flight or the commiss | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.