State v. Mitchell

Docket Number107022
Decision Date12 April 2013

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
58 cases
  • State v. Arnett
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 15, 2021
    ...while review of Arnett's case was pending, we do not apply the quid pro quo test to her section 5 claim. See State v. Mitchell , 297 Kan. 118, 124-25, 298 P.3d 349 (2013) (change in the law acts prospectively, applying " ‘to all cases ... pending on direct review or not yet final’ "). Secti......
  • State v. Thomas
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • April 13, 2018
    ...law acts prospectively, applying " ‘to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final.’ " State v. Mitchell , 297 Kan. 118, 124-25, 298 P.3d 349 (2013) (quoting State v. Berry , 292 Kan. 493, 514, 254 P.3d 1276 [2011] ). But because this case was fully briefed under ......
  • State v. Chandler
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • April 6, 2018
    ...case.’ [Citation omitted.]" 305 Kan. at 110-11, 378 P.3d 1060.Because Chandler's appeal is not yet final, Sherman applies. See State v. Mitchell , 297 Kan. 118, Syl. ¶ 3, 298 P.3d 349 (2013) (change in law applies to cases pending on direct review and not yet final on date of appellate cour......
  • State v. Ford
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 31, 2015
    ...in effect when Ford filed his motion. Nevertheless, this change would typically apply to bar Ford's motion. See State v. Mitchell, 297 Kan. 118, 124–25, 298 P.3d 349 (2013) (change in the law acts prospectively, applying “ ‘to all cases ... pending on direct review or not yet final’ ”). Tre......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Clear as Mud: Unraveling Criminal History Scoring
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 93-4, August 2024
    • Invalid date
    ...439 P.3d 307 (2019) (Murdock II) (legality of sentence set at time of sentencing if no direct appeal filed). [6]. State v. Mitchell, 297 Kan. 118, Syl. ¶ 3, 298 P.3d 349 (2013); Murdock II, 309 Kan. at 591-92. [7]. Murdock II, 309 Kan. at 591. [8]. If a sentence was initially illegal, but r......