13 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mickens v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2015“Sharkey was constructively denied his right to counsel because of his attorneys conflict of interests; he effectively had no legal representation at the motions hearing.” 299 Kan. at 101 (citing Mickens, 535 U.S. at 172 n.5). 2014See Mickens, 535 U.S. at 172 n.5 (stating that an “ ‘actual conflict,’ ” for Sixth Amendment purposes, is necessarily a conflict of interest adversely affecting counsel’s performance). | 1 | 2 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2025See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. 2025See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sharkeygreen1 sentence2024See Sharkey, 299 Kan. at 101 (finding at hearing on defendant's pro se posttrial motions that asserted attorney was ineffective due to conflict of interest, defendant "effectively had no legal representation at the motions hearing" when defendant argued counsel was ineffective). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Butlergreen1 sentence2022See Butler, 307 Kan. at 854 . 17 Brazille could not give any identifying information about the unknown individual with alleged exculpatory information until the motions hearing when he stated a last name of "Simpson." Further, aside from the unknown individual whom Pittman tried to locate, Brazille did not suggest to the district court, or on appeal, whom Pittman should have called in Brazille's defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Proctor
green
2 sentences2026At a subsequent motions hearing, Proctor said: "Then, at this point, why don't I go ahead and get another lawyer and—because this is just too confusing for me anymore." 166 F.3d at 400 . 2026The court informed him it was "too late for that." 166 F.3d at 400 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2026Anderson, 291 Kan. at 855 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Adams
green
1 sentence2026If the court then determines there is no substantial issue, the court may deny the motion; or (3) the court may determine from the motion, files, records, or preliminary hearing that a substantial issue is presented requiring a full hearing.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Adams, 311 Kan. 569 , 578, 465 P.3d 176 (2020). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Boyd
neutral
1 sentence2024He had ample opportunity to object to the presence of his attorney." 27 Kan. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re the Marriage of Roth
green
1 sentence2021In re Marriage of Roth, 26 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
1 sentence2016Moreover, Ellison did not set the motions for hearing until a year after they had been pending, and Ellison opposed the State's request to argue them promptly. (4) Prejudice Under Barker, prejudice must be "assessed in the light of the interests of defendants which the speedy trial right was designed to protect. . . . : (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and 25 (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired." 407 U.S. at 532 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2014Although the State does not cite Strickland, 466 U.S. 668 , the State appears to derive its prejudice argument from Strickland , which generally applies to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s performance. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Ortega-Cadelan
green
1 sentence2012But, we still must evaluate this conclusion in light of the third Freeman factor. • Third Freeman Factor Under the third Freeman factor — comparison of the penalty with punishments in other jurisdictions for the same offense— Cameron made the general acknowledgment in his presentencing motion and at the motions hearing that many states have passed some form of “Jessica’s Law.” He argued in his written motion that this did not foreclose his requested relief because “in Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 ,... the Court said, ‘Ultimately, one consideration may weigh so heavily that it directs the final | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Ortiz
green
2 sentences2009At a motions hearing in July 2008, Holm withdrew this motion and moved the district court to enter an order allowing him to appeal out of time pursuant to State v. Ortiz, 230 Kan. 733 , 640 P.2d 1255 (1982). 2009At a motions hearing in July 2008, Holm withdrew this motion and moved the district court to enter an order allowing him to appeal out of time pursuant to State v. Ortiz, 230 Kan. 733 , 640 P.2d 1255 (1982). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Southard
green
2 sentences2005For example, in State v. Southard, 261 Kan. 744 , the Supreme Court approved the trial court’s ruling in attributing all the time between arraignment and a motions hearing to the defendant because defense counsel requested a hearing date for potential motions. 2005For example, in State v. Southard, 261 Kan. 744 , the Supreme Court approved the trial court's ruling in attributing all the time between arraignment and a motions hearing to the defendant because defense counsel requested a hearing date for potential motions. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.
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.