evidentiaiy hearing in Kansas

2012The Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Hearing Ontiberos timely appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals and was appointed new counsel, who filed a motion alleging Ontiberos received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and requested remand to the district court for an evidentiaiy hearing under State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986) (recognizing appellate court discretion to order remand as an alternative and more expeditious remedy to K.S.A. 60-1507 to pursue ineffective assistance of counsel allegations).

2012The Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Hearing Ontiberos timely appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals and was appointed new counsel, who filed a motion alleging Ontiberos received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and requested remand to the district court for an evidentiaiy hearing under State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986) (recognizing appellate court discretion to order remand as an alternative and more expeditious remedy to K.S.A. 60-1507 to pursue ineffective assistance of counsel allegations).

2017Taylor III, 636 F.3d at 902 .

2014We recently explained: “Although ‘there are circumstances when no evidentiaiy 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 minima

2014We recently explained: “Although ‘there are circumstances when no evidentiaiy 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 minima

2014Kelly, 291 Kan. at 567 .

2014In addition, this appears to be an evidentiaiy challenge and K.S.A. 60-404 generally precludes an appellate court from reviewing an evidentiary challenge “unless there appears of record objection to the evidence timely interposed and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of objection.” See State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 126 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012).

2014In addition, this appears to be an evidentiaiy challenge and K.S.A. 60-404 generally precludes an appellate court from reviewing an evidentiary challenge “unless there appears of record objection to the evidence timely interposed and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of objection.” See State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 126 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012).

2014We recently explained: “Although ‘there are circumstances when no evidentiaiy 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 minima

2014We recently explained: “Although ‘there are circumstances when no evidentiaiy 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 minima

2013Shumway v. State, No. 102,027, 2010 WL 1462712 (Kan.

2013It held that it was obligated to follow this court’s Lujan and Bellamy decisions, and telephonic participation' was insufficient to satisfy the requirement that the full evidentiaiy hearing occur “ ‘with the presence of the petitioner.’ ” Fischer, 41 Kan.

2009E.g., Potts v. State, 214 Kan. 369 , 520 P.2d 1259 (1974).

2009E.g., Potts v. State, 214 Kan. 369 , 520 P.2d 1259 (1974).

2008Then, citing to Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley, 244 Kan. 555, 570 , 770 P.2d 466 (1989), McCracken argues the standard of review is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.

2008Then, citing to Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley, 244 Kan. 555, 570 , 770 P.2d 466 (1989), McCracken argues the standard of review is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.

2006App. 2d 84, 85 , 60 P.3d 347 (2003) (ordinarily tire trial judge is expected to make the preliminary review of a 60-1507 motion to decide if an evidentiaiy hearing should be conducted, because of his or her familiarity with the underlying criminal case).

2005Ed. 2d 674 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), claim, counsel proceeded to undermine the prejudice prong of her client’s claim by opining, “I don’t think there would have been a different outcome in the matter.” Campbell’s counsel praised his trial attorney and argued against an evidentiaiy hearing because Campbell “was very vague on the information he wants presented.” Campbell’s counsel left no doubt as to her opinion that Campbell’s motion was without merit: “Although it would not please Mr. Campbell, I would have to state to the Court that based on my review . . . [and] my experience of almost 15 ye

2004The district court did not err in summarily denying the motion for new trial based upon Holmes’ pro se motion for ineffective assistance of counsel without an evidentiaiy hearing. (5) Insufficient evidence to establish premeditation “When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Beach, 275 Kan. 603 , Syl. ¶ 2, 67 P

2004The district court did not err in summarily denying the motion for new trial based upon Holmes’ pro se motion for ineffective assistance of counsel without an evidentiaiy hearing. (5) Insufficient evidence to establish premeditation “When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Beach, 275 Kan. 603 , Syl. ¶ 2, 67 P

2003State v. Banks, 260 Kan. 918 , Syl. ¶ 4, 927 P.2d 456 (1996).

2003State v. Banks, 260 Kan. 918 , Syl. ¶ 4, 927 P.2d 456 (1996).

2000Thomas reviewed State v. Bradley, 246 Kan. 316 , 787 P.2d 706 (1990); Dunn, 243 Kan. 414 ; and State v. Holley, 238 Kan. 501, 509-10 , 712 P.2d 1214 (1986).

2000Thomas reviewed State v. Bradley, 246 Kan. 316 , 787 P.2d 706 (1990); Dunn, 243 Kan. 414 ; and State v. Holley, 238 Kan. 501, 509-10 , 712 P.2d 1214 (1986).

2000Thomas reviewed State v. Bradley, 246 Kan. 316 , 787 P.2d 706 (1990); Dunn, 243 Kan. 414 ; and State v. Holley, 238 Kan. 501, 509-10 , 712 P.2d 1214 (1986).

2000Thomas reviewed State v. Bradley, 246 Kan. 316 , 787 P.2d 706 (1990); Dunn, 243 Kan. 414 ; and State v. Holley, 238 Kan. 501, 509-10 , 712 P.2d 1214 (1986).

2000Thomas reviewed State v. Bradley, 246 Kan. 316 , 787 P.2d 706 (1990); Dunn, 243 Kan. 414 ; and State v. Holley, 238 Kan. 501, 509-10 , 712 P.2d 1214 (1986).

1998In the recent case of State v. Cellier, 263 Kan. 54 , 948 P.2d 616 (1997), the constitutionality of K.S.A. 22-3302, competency to *714 stand trial, was challenged because it did not include an evidentiaiy standard of proof.

1998In the recent case of State v. Cellier, 263 Kan. 54 , 948 P.2d 616 (1997), the constitutionality of K.S.A. 22-3302, competency to *714 stand trial, was challenged because it did not include an evidentiaiy standard of proof.

1998In support of his violation of due process claim, Dwight relies upon Estate of Wolongavich, 339 Pa. Super. 452 , 489 A.2d 248 (1985), to establish that due process required that he be afforded a full evidentiaiy hearing at the second hearing.

1998In support of his violation of due process claim, Dwight relies upon Estate of Wolongavich, 339 Pa. Super. 452 , 489 A.2d 248 (1985), to establish that due process required that he be afforded a full evidentiaiy hearing at the second hearing.

1995K.S.A. [1994] Supp. 21-4721(d)(2) requires a law test — are the reasons stated on the record for departure adequate to justify a sentence outside the presumptive sentence?” State v. Richardson, 20 Kan.