2. Refusal to grant continuance proper where defendant had seven months from arraignment to prepare for trial. State v. Roberts, 13 Kan. App. 2d 485, 487, 773 P.2d 688 (1989).
State v. Flack, 541 P.3d 717 (Kan. 2024). · cites it 3דNow, on appeal, Flack asserts the district court's scheduling orders violated his Sixth Amendment due process right to present a defense, his corresponding rights under sections 5 and 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, and finally his statutory rights under K.S.A.…”
State v. Haislip, 701 P.2d 909 (Kan. 1985). “K.S.A. 22-3406 provides that a defendant shall be entitled to a reasonable time after arraignment to prepare for trial.”
State v. Roberts, 773 P.2d 688 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989). “In any event, K.S.A. 22-3406 states that, after arraignment, the defendant is entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for trial.”
State v. Flack (Kan. 2024). · cites it 3דNow, on appeal, Flack asserts the district court's scheduling orders violated his Sixth Amendment due process right to present a defense, his corresponding rights under sections 5 and 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, and finally his statutory rights under K.S.A.…”
State v. Prickett (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2דOn appeal, Flack challenged the rulings by the district court, asserting the court's "scheduling orders violated his Sixth Amendment due process right to present a defense, his corresponding rights under sections 5 and 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, and finally…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.