Smith motion in Kansas

23 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2026 10 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co.green kan · 2013 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 2 sentences 2026Accord Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906, 935 , 296 P.3d 1106 (2013) ("Ordinarily, summary judgment should not be granted until discovery is complete. 2026Accord Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co., 296 Kan. 906, 935 , 296 P.3d 1106 (2013) ("Ordinarily, summary judgment should not be granted until discovery is complete.	1	1
State v. Smithgreen kanctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024State v. Smith, No. 101,270, 2010 WL 1078425, at *1 (Kan.	1	1
State v. Taylorgreen kan · 1999 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022See State v. Taylor, 266 Kan. 967, 976 [, 975 P.2d 1196 ] (1999)." Smith's motion consists of three sections. • In section one, Smith simply recites the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3210(a)(1)-(4) for acceptance of a guilty or nolo contendere plea; and the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3210(d)(1) for withdrawal of a plea before sentencing. • In section two, Smith states her grounds for withdrawing her plea as recounted verbatim above. • In section three, Smith simply states the conclusion, without supporting argument, that she has met her burden of showing of showing good cause to withdraw her plea. 2022See State v. Taylor, 266 Kan. 967, 976 [, 975 P.2d 1196 ] (1999)." Smith's motion consists of three sections. • In section one, Smith simply recites the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3210(a)(1)-(4) for acceptance of a guilty or nolo contendere plea; and the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3210(d)(1) for withdrawal of a plea before sentencing. • In section two, Smith states her grounds for withdrawing her plea as recounted verbatim above. • In section three, Smith simply states the conclusion, without supporting argument, that she has met her burden of showing of showing good cause to withdraw her plea.	1	1
State v. Denneygreen kan · 2004 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019See, e.g., Denney , 278 Kan. at 648 , 101 P.3d 1257 . 2019See, e.g., Denney , 278 Kan. at 648 , 101 P.3d 1257 .	1	1
State v. McCoingreen kan · 2004 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019See Landrum v. Goering , 306 Kan. 867 , 872-73, 397 P.3d 1181 (2017) (discussing standard of review for statutory interpretation); State v. Neal , 292 Kan. 625 , 629, 258 P.3d 365 (2011) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 [1] ); State v. Ellmaker , 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 6, 1147, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009) (discussing standard of review for issues of jurisdiction); Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354, 172 P.3d 10 (2007) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of K.S.A. 60-150 2019See Landrum v. Goering , 306 Kan. 867 , 872-73, 397 P.3d 1181 (2017) (discussing standard of review for statutory interpretation); State v. Neal , 292 Kan. 625 , 629, 258 P.3d 365 (2011) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 [1] ); State v. Ellmaker , 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 6, 1147, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009) (discussing standard of review for issues of jurisdiction); Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354, 172 P.3d 10 (2007) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of K.S.A. 60-150	1	1
Arizona v. Johnsongreen scotus · 2009 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 326-27 , 129 S. Ct. 781 , 172 L. 2017See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 326-27 , 129 S. Ct. 781 , 172 L.	1	1
State v. Denneygreen kan · 1995 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See State v. Denney, 258 Kan. 437, 445 , 905 P.2d 657 (1995). 2008See State v. Denney, 258 Kan. 437, 445 , 905 P.2d 657 (1995).	1	1
State v. Davisgreen kan · 2007 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See State v. Davis, 283 Kan. 569, 583 , 158 P.3d 317 (2007).	1	1
State v. Davisgreen kan · 2007 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See State v. Davis, 283 Kan. 569, 583 , 158 P.3d 317 (2007).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (21)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Smith green kan · 2016 2 sentences 2022Smith I, 304 Kan. at 917-18 . 2021Indeed, the district court set them out verbatim at the beginning of its December 15, 2016, journal entry denying Smith's motion to file a late appeal: 'This case was remanded "for the express purpose of determining whether Smith's testimony is credible, i.e., whether he told his attorney to appeal, 13 whether the attorney did not file an appeal, and whether Smith would have appealed if his attorney had not failed to perform.' "As a result, the sole issue before us is whether the district court was successful in that effort. [Citations omitted.]" Smith II, 308 Kan. at 783 (quoting Smith I, 304	4	2018–2022
State v. Ortiz green kan · 1982 2 sentences 2022Smith asserted that he should be able to file a late appeal since his attorney failed to appeal despite Smith's instruction for him to do so, which, if proven, would allow a late appeal under the third of three exceptions set forth in State v. Ortiz, 230 Kan. 733, 735-36 , 640 P.2d 1255 (1982). 2022Smith asserted that he should be able to file a late appeal since his attorney failed to appeal despite Smith's instruction for him to do so, which, if proven, would allow a late appeal under the third of three exceptions set forth in State v. Ortiz, 230 Kan. 733, 735-36 , 640 P.2d 1255 (1982).	2	2022–2022
State v. Edgar green kan · 2006 2 sentences 2021Considering the defenses he waived and motions he withdrew through the plea process, the court explained, "I believe that all of these things were covered either with you and your attorney separately, or all of us in open court." The court then evaluated Smith's motion in light of the factors discussed in State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006), and determined he had not shown good cause to withdraw his plea. 5 Having denied Smith's plea-withdrawal motion, the court proceeded to sentencing. 2021Considering the defenses he waived and motions he withdrew through the plea process, the court explained, "I believe that all of these things were covered either with you and your attorney separately, or all of us in open court." The court then evaluated Smith's motion in light of the factors discussed in State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006), and determined he had not shown good cause to withdraw his plea. 5 Having denied Smith's plea-withdrawal motion, the court proceeded to sentencing.	2	2021–2022
Counterman v. Colorado green scotus · 2023 1 sentence 2025The district court overruled Smith's objection, reasoning that the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in 6 Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 , 143 S. Ct. 2106 , 216 L.	1	2025–2025
State v. Smith green kan · 1982 2 sentences 2024Under 12 our law, it is the fact, not the distance of the taking, and the fact, not the time or place of confinement, that supplies the necessary element of Kidnapping.'" 232 Kan. at 290 . 2024Under 12 our law, it is the fact, not the distance of the taking, and the fact, not the time or place of confinement, that supplies the necessary element of Kidnapping.'" 232 Kan. at 290 .	1	2024–2024
State v. Gonzalez green kan · 2018 2 sentences 2021As-Applied Constitutional Challenge But even assuming Smith did not waive his as-applied constitutional challenge to the traffic in contraband in a correctional institution statute, we also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith's motion to withdraw his plea. "[A] statute's constitutionality is a question of law subject to unlimited review." State v. Gonzalez, 307 Kan. 575, 579 , 412 P.3d 968 (2018). 2021As-Applied Constitutional Challenge But even assuming Smith did not waive his as-applied constitutional challenge to the traffic in contraband in a correctional institution statute, we also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith's motion to withdraw his plea. "[A] statute's constitutionality is a question of law subject to unlimited review." State v. Gonzalez, 307 Kan. 575, 579 , 412 P.3d 968 (2018).	1	2021–2021
Bellamy v. State green kan · 2007 2 sentences 2019See Landrum v. Goering , 306 Kan. 867 , 872-73, 397 P.3d 1181 (2017) (discussing standard of review for statutory interpretation); State v. Neal , 292 Kan. 625 , 629, 258 P.3d 365 (2011) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 [1] ); State v. Ellmaker , 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 6, 1147, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009) (discussing standard of review for issues of jurisdiction); Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354, 172 P.3d 10 (2007) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of K.S.A. 60-150 2019See Landrum v. Goering , 306 Kan. 867 , 872-73, 397 P.3d 1181 (2017) (discussing standard of review for statutory interpretation); State v. Neal , 292 Kan. 625 , 629, 258 P.3d 365 (2011) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 [1] ); State v. Ellmaker , 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 6, 1147, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009) (discussing standard of review for issues of jurisdiction); Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354, 172 P.3d 10 (2007) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of K.S.A. 60-150	1	2019–2019
State v. Ellmaker green kan · 2009 2 sentences 2019See Landrum v. Goering , 306 Kan. 867 , 872-73, 397 P.3d 1181 (2017) (discussing standard of review for statutory interpretation); State v. Neal , 292 Kan. 625 , 629, 258 P.3d 365 (2011) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 [1] ); State v. Ellmaker , 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 6, 1147, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009) (discussing standard of review for issues of jurisdiction); Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354, 172 P.3d 10 (2007) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of K.S.A. 60-150 2019See Landrum v. Goering , 306 Kan. 867 , 872-73, 397 P.3d 1181 (2017) (discussing standard of review for statutory interpretation); State v. Neal , 292 Kan. 625 , 629, 258 P.3d 365 (2011) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 [1] ); State v. Ellmaker , 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 6, 1147, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009) (discussing standard of review for issues of jurisdiction); Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354, 172 P.3d 10 (2007) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of K.S.A. 60-150	1	2019–2019
State v. Neal green kan · 2011 2 sentences 2019See Landrum v. Goering , 306 Kan. 867 , 872-73, 397 P.3d 1181 (2017) (discussing standard of review for statutory interpretation); State v. Neal , 292 Kan. 625 , 629, 258 P.3d 365 (2011) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 [1] ); State v. Ellmaker , 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 6, 1147, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009) (discussing standard of review for issues of jurisdiction); Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354, 172 P.3d 10 (2007) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of K.S.A. 60-150 2019See Landrum v. Goering , 306 Kan. 867 , 872-73, 397 P.3d 1181 (2017) (discussing standard of review for statutory interpretation); State v. Neal , 292 Kan. 625 , 629, 258 P.3d 365 (2011) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 [1] ); State v. Ellmaker , 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 6, 1147, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009) (discussing standard of review for issues of jurisdiction); Bellamy v. State , 285 Kan. 346 , 354, 172 P.3d 10 (2007) (discussing standard of review when appeal concerns summary dismissal of K.S.A. 60-150	1	2019–2019
State v. Guzman green kan · 2005 2 sentences 2019The panel agreed with Smith that this court's opinion in State v. Guzman , 279 Kan. 812 , 813-16, 112 P.3d 120 (2005), reached the merits of Jaime Guzman's nunc pro tunc motion for jail credit. 2019The panel agreed with Smith that this court's opinion in State v. Guzman , 279 Kan. 812 , 813-16, 112 P.3d 120 (2005), reached the merits of Jaime Guzman's nunc pro tunc motion for jail credit.	1	2019–2019
State v. Wetrich green kan · 2018 2 sentences 2018In this appeal, the parties have shifted gears and focus on the Kansas Supreme Court's recent ruling in State v. Wetrich , 307 Kan. 552 , 412 P.3d 984 (2018). 2018In this appeal, the parties have shifted gears and focus on the Kansas Supreme Court's recent ruling in State v. Wetrich , 307 Kan. 552 , 412 P.3d 984 (2018).	1	2018–2018
In re Arkell ( green kan · 2016 1 sentence 2018Smith , No. 110,061, slip op. at 9, (Kan., Aug. 5, 2016) [ 304 Kan. 916 , 922, 377 P.3d 414 (2016) ]." As a result, the sole issue before us is whether the district court was successful in that effort.	1	2018–2018
Smith v. Doe green scotus · 2003 2 sentences 2016In contrast, Smith’s analysis of AS ORA specifically noted the absence of the ability of the public to comment. 538 U.S. at 99 . 2016In contrast, Smith's analysis of ASORA specifically noted the absence of the ability of the public to comment. 538 U.S. at 99 .	1	2016–2016
State v. Keel green kan · 2015 2 sentences 2016Smith’s claim is controlled by our recent decision in State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 , 357 P.3d 251 (2015). 2016Smith’s claim is controlled by our recent decision in State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 , 357 P.3d 251 (2015).	1	2016–2016
State v. Smith green kanctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2016State v. Smith, 49 Kan.	1	2016–2016
State v. Smith green kan · 1988 1 sentence 2013This court reversed, emphasizing that the State employee’s initial uninvited entry into defendant’s residence “had no connection with his duties of collecting trash and no connection with the objectives of the governmental entity which employed him.” 243 Kan. at 722 .	1	2013–2013
Mebane v. State green kanctapp · 1995 2 sentences 2005The district court denied Smith’s motion, together with three other motions, in a memorandum decision relying upon Mebane v. State, 21 Kan. 2005App. 2d 533 , 902 P.2d 494 (1995), which predates tire enactment of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-2512 and case law construing the new statute.	1	2005–2005
Kenneth Godfrey Aviation, Inc. v. Smith green kanctapp · 1987 1 sentence 2003Godfrey Aviation and Smith claim their use of the airplanes alone is determinative of the right to an exemption.” 12 Kan.	1	2003–2003
State v. Smith green kan · 1979 2 sentences 1998The court found that Smith’s failure to question the sufficiency of the preliminary examination by a motion to dismiss pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3208 constituted a waiver of that issue on appeal. 225 Kan. at 798 . 1998The court found that Smith's failure to question the sufficiency of the preliminary examination by a motion to dismiss pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3208 constituted a waiver of that issue on appeal. 225 Kan. at 798 .	1	1998–1998
Armstrong v. Goldblatt Tool Co. red kan · 1987 2 sentences 1988Armstrong v. Goldblatt Tool Co., 242 Kan. 164 , 747 P.2d 119 (1987), affirmed the Cox rationale that employees covered by collective bargaining have an adequate remedy and do not need the protection afforded at-will employees in Murphy . 1988Armstrong v. Goldblatt Tool Co., 242 Kan. 164 , 747 P.2d 119 (1987), affirmed the Cox rationale that employees covered by collective bargaining have an adequate remedy and do not need the protection afforded at-will employees in Murphy .	1	1988–1988
Preferred Accident Insurance v. Stone green kan · 1899 2 sentences 1928In the case of Insurance Co. v. Stone, 61 Kan. 48 , 58 Pac. 986 , formation of the insurance contract was not regulated by statute and by-law. 1928In the case of Insurance Co. v. Stone, 61 Kan. 48 , 58 Pac. 986 , formation of the insurance contract was not regulated by statute and by-law.	1	1928–1928

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 21-6810 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 60-409 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3504 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 126 (1934–2026) GA 108 (1969–2026) CA 96 (1895–2026) OH 92 (1968–2026) PA 79 (1899–2026) FL 66 (1966–2026) IL 65 (1976–2025) MS 59 (1980–2025) IN 59 (1972–2024) WA 53 (1971–2025) MI 40 (1972–2025) AL 38 (1986–2024) NY 34 (1906–2024) MO 28 (1977–2024) IA 25 (1992–2025) MD 25 (1965–2023) DC 25 (1983–2024) ID 24 (1972–2026) WI 23 (1958–2025) KS 23 (1928–2026) UT 23 (1988–2026) LA 22 (1972–2026) AZ 22 (1988–2020) AR 21 (1995–2026) SC 21 (1992–2026) DE 19 (1997–2026) NC 16 (1976–2019) VA 16 (1984–2025) MT 14 (1981–2026) TN 14 (2002–2025) KY 14 (1951–2025) CT 12 (1986–2019) ME 11 (1983–2024) MN 11 (1984–2026) MA 10 (1973–2026) CO 10 (1985–2025) OK 9 (1982–2014) NJ 9 (1955–2022) OR 9 (1926–2023) AK 9 (1987–2021) NM 8 (1938–2020) NE 8 (1985–2023) NV 7 (1964–2014) WY 6 (1996–2021) WV 6 (2004–2020) VT 6 (1989–2020) SD 5 (1994–2014) HI 5 (2002–2020) VI 4 (2009–2017) RI 3 (1975–2021) ND 2 (1990–2008) NH 2 (1994–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check