Source or Prior Law:

21-107a.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Increased punishment for recidivists no longer mandatory upon the court, but within its discretion, Robert L. Heath, 9 W.L.J. 430, 441 (1970).

"Evidence—Admissibility of Prior Convictions of Similar But Independent Offenses," Lawrence E. Schauf, 9 W.L.J. 478, 480 (1970).

Section inconsistent with policy of individualization and rehabilitation as set forth by legislative council, Raymond W. Baker, 10 W.L.J. 267, 274, 280 (1971).

Sentence increase upon second trial for same offense, John E. Caton, 11 W.L.J. 301 (1972).

Subsection (4) mentioned in article concerning parole eligibility for prisoners serving consecutive sentences in Kansas, Malcolm E. Wheeler, 21 K.L.R. 167, 172 (1973).

Conflict with Mandatory Sentencing Act (K.S.A. 21-4618) discussed in note, 26 K.L.R. 277, 278, 279, 280 (1978).

"Toward Certainty in Sentencing: Kansas Modifies the Indeterminate Sentence," Wayne K. Westblade, 18 W.L.J. 578, 591 (1979).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Criminal Law and Procedure," Keith G. Meyer, 27 K.L.R. 391, 395 (1979).

"Kansas Diversion: Defendant's Remedies and Prosecutorial Opportunities," Joseph Brian Cox, 20 W.L.J. 344, 354 (1981).

"Death Penalty Should the Law Provide for the Imposition of the Penalty of Death for Certain Offenses," Robert D. Hecht, 1 J.K.T.L.A. No. 1, 27, 28 (1977).

"A Comment on Kansas' New 'Drunk Driving' Law," Joseph Brian Cox and Donald G. Strole, 51 J.K.B.A. 230, 238, 239 (1982).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Criminal Law," Robert A. Wason, 32 K.L.R. 395, 410 (1984).

"The Kansas Hard-Forty Law," The Honorable Tom Malone, 32 W.L.J. 147, 150 (1993).

Survey of Recent Cases, 43 K.L.R. 998 (1995).

Survey of Recent Cases, 45 K.L.R. 1381 (1997).

"Strike Three: Even Though California's Three Strikes Law Strikes Out Andrade, There Are No Winners in This Game [Lockyer v. Andrade, 583 U.S. 63 (2003)]," Scott A. Grosskreutz, 43 W.L.J. 429 (2004).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Conviction for second and subsequent felonies; class A felonies. 88-151A.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Provisions of subsection (4) not contained in prior law (K.S.A. 21-107a); in resentencing proceeding, sentence imposed under K.S.A. 21-107a after introduction of new evidence as to a prior conviction held improper. State v. Daegele, 206 Kan. 379, 382, 479 P.2d 891.

2. Irregularity in service of notice to invoke Habitual Criminal Act not prejudicial error. State v. Stewart, 208 Kan. 197, 491 P.2d 944.

3. No error where increased sentence for prior convictions imposed because subsequent legislature raised juvenile age limit. State v. Grimmett & Smith, 208 Kan. 324, 325, 491 P.2d 549.

4. No error in imposing sentence under habitual criminal section. State v. Tillman, 208 Kan. 954, 961, 494 P.2d 1178.

5. Mentioned; due process not violated by lineup procedure; defendant's right to participate in his defense discretionary with court. State v. Kelly, 210 Kan. 192, 499 P.2d 1040.

6. Forgery complaint filed during petitioner's confinement in penitentiary; no apparent compliance with uniform mandatory disposition of detainers act. Hayes v. State, 210 Kan. 231, 499 P.2d 515.

7. No error in imposing sentence under habitual criminal act; not unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment. Clinton v. State, 210 Kan. 327, 328, 329, 502 P.2d 852.

8. Sentencing hereunder applicable only to criminals initially sentenced for offenses committed after effective date of new criminal code; subsection (3) construed. State v. Ogden, 210 Kan. 510, 520, 521, 502 P.2d 654.

9. On-the-scene identification; constitutional right to counsel not violated; prior conviction of auto theft properly admitted. State v. Kress, 210 Kan. 522, 502 P.2d 827.

10. Record examined; no prejudicial error. State v. Calvert, 211 Kan. 174, 177, 505 P.2d 1110.

11. Sentencing hereunder for conviction of uttering a forged instrument not cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Huesing, 211 Kan. 610, 506 P.2d 1140.

12. Mentioned; section applicable only to those initially sentenced after effective date of new code. State v. Eaton, 213 Kan. 86, 90, 515 P.2d 807.

13. Sentence imposed hereunder falling within statutory limits cannot be said to be excessive. State v. Miles, 213 Kan. 245, 247, 515 P.2d 742.

14. Section applied; conviction of forcible rape; record reviewed; no error. State v. Platz, 214 Kan. 74, 519 P.2d 1097.

15. Sentence hereunder after conviction of forgery; not cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Collins, 214 Kan. 247, 519 P.2d 1396.

16. Movant properly sentenced under prior habitual criminal act; escaping from industrial school felony conviction. LaVier v. State, 214 Kan. 287, 290, 520 P.2d 1325.

17. Constitutionality of section questioned in post-conviction procedure; Supreme Court Rule No. 121 applied. Tillman v. State, 215 Kan. 365, 366, 524 P.2d 772.

18. Former habitual criminal act (K.S.A. 21-107a) constitutional. Caldrone v. State, 215 Kan. 351, 352, 524 P.2d 228; Tillman v. State, 215 Kan. 365, 366, 524 P.2d 772; State v. Troy, 215 Kan. 369, 373, 374, 375, 524 P.2d 1121.

19. Mentioned in ruling on motion to vacate sentence pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507; relief denied. Burns v. State, 215 Kan. 497, 498, 524 P.2d 737.

20. Attempted aggravated burglary conviction; sentence hereunder upheld; notice of intent to invoke. State v. Myers, 215 Kan. 600, 604, 527 P.2d 1053.

21. Conviction on two counts of aggravated assault; sentence to consecutive terms upheld. State v. Bradley, 215 Kan. 642, 645, 648, 527 P.2d 988.

22. Sentence hereunder after conviction of aggravated robbery; alleged errors reviewed and conviction upheld. State v. Collins, 215 Kan. 789, 791, 528 P.2d 1221.

23. Sentence hereunder from conviction of rape; evidence and instructions upheld. State v. Hampton, 215 Kan. 907, 529 P.2d 127.

24. Sentencing pursuant to subsection (2) upheld; no error to sentence within permissible limits of this section. State v. Pettay, 216 Kan. 555, 558, 532 P.2d 1289.

25. No abuse of discretion in imposition of sentence hereunder; conviction of possession of narcotic drugs. State v. Deffenbaugh, 216 Kan. 593, 600, 533 P.2d 1328.

26. Error in imposing sentence where prior conviction of two or more felonies. State v. Lohrbach. 217 Kan. 588, 592, 538 P.2d 678.

27. No unjust discrimination in fixing sentence hereunder; no abuse of discretion. State v. Sully, 219 Kan. 222, 230, 547 P.2d 344.

28. Sentence hereunder upheld; no cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Steward, 219 Kan. 256, 270, 547 P.2d 773.

29. Sentence hereunder from conviction of giving worthless check (K.S.A. 21-3707); properly invoked. State v. Powell, 220 Kan. 168, 170, 176, 551 P.2d 902.

30. Sentence hereunder after conviction of theft and unlawful deprivation of property affirmed; sufficient admissible evidence. State v. Moore, 220 Kan. 707, 710, 556 P.2d 409.

31. Distinction between crimes in which prior conviction is necessary element and prior crimes considered in establishing penalty. State v. Loudermilk, 221 Kan. 157, 159, 161, 557 P.2d 1229.

32. Sentencing hereunder upheld; no error in finding of district court of prior conviction. State v. Ames, 222 Kan. 88, 102, 103, 563 P.2d 1034.

33. Mentioned in holding that a defendant is to be considered convicted of a crime even though not yet sentenced. State v. Holmes, 222 Kan. 212, 214, 563 P.2d 480.

34. Applied in upholding mandatory criminal minimum sentencing under K.S.A. 21-4618. State v. Kleber, 2 Kan. App. 2d 115, 120, 575 P.2d 900.

35. Defendant's sentence properly enhanced under provisions of this section. State v. Pierson, 222 Kan. 498, 504, 565 P.2d 270.

36. Section applicable and properly invoked; confinement in custody. State v. Crawford, 223 Kan. 127, 129, 573 P.2d 982.

37. Sentence for conviction of aggravated robbery under facts, constituted abuse of discretion; remanded for resentencing. State v. Buckner, 223 Kan. 138, 146, 148, 574 P.2d 918.

38. Abuse of judicial discretion in sentencing defendant; remanded for resentencing. State v. Coe, 223 Kan. 153, 167, 168, 574 P.2d 929.

39. Sentence invoked hereunder; conviction under K.S.A. 21-4204. State v. Murrell, 224 Kan. 689, 690, 585 P.2d 1017.

40. Conviction of prior felony, not sentence for prior felony, triggers application of habitual criminal statute. State v. Robertson, 225 Kan. 572, 575, 592 P.2d 460.

41. Arguments challenging constitutionality of act and its application adversely decided. State v. Davis, 2 Kan. App. 2d 698, 704, 587 P.2d 3.

42. Conviction hereunder reversed; assaults on law enforcement officers during one episode at different times are separate offenses, certain elements not present. State v. Duncan, 3 Kan. App. 2d 271, 593 P.2d 427.

43. Sentence imposed hereunder upheld; no evidence that court acted vindictively, arbitrarily or abused judicial discretion. State v. Words, 226 Kan. 59, 66, 596 P.2d 129.

44. Invoking habitual criminal act upon defendant convicted under K.S.A. 65-4127a, when the felony class was not enhanced by prior conviction, not error. State v. Newell, 226 Kan. 295, 300, 301, 597 P.2d 1104.

45. Cited in upholding second degree murder conviction. State v. Levier, 226 Kan. 461, 467, 601 P.2d 1116.

46. Cited in upholding conviction of taking indecent liberties with a child; oral notice sufficient; certified copies of official records competent evidence. State v. Voiles, 226 Kan. 469, 470, 471, 601 P.2d 1121.

47. Sentence of defendant under section upheld. State v. Rice, 227 Kan. 416, 425, 607 P.2d 489.

48. Conviction for possession of heroin upheld; court did not abuse discretion in sentencing under the habitual criminal act. State v. Whitehead, 229 Kan. 133, 141, 622 P.2d 665.

49. Before defendant can be sentenced as habitual criminal, each succeeding offense must be committed after conviction for preceding offense. State v. Wilson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 627 P.2d 1185.

50. Decision in State v. Wilson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 302, affirmed. State v. Wilson, 230 Kan. 287, 634 P.2d 1087 (1981).

51. Trial court did not err in making sentences run consecutively; no evidence in record of mitigating circumstances. State v. Irving, 231 Kan. 258, 266, 644 P.2d 389 (1982).

52. Act is not rendered unconstitutional because its use by the prosecutor is optional; does not affect defendant's exercise of constitutional rights. State v. Robinson, 233 Kan. 384, 385, 662 P.2d 1275 (1983).

53. No requirement that foreign felony conviction be for felony offense in Kansas. State v. Crispin, 234 Kan. 104, 111, 671 P.2d 502 (1983).

54. Cited in holding enhancement of sentence under K.S.A. 8-1567(d) requires succeeding offenses be committed after conviction for preceding offense. State v. Osoba, 234 Kan. 443, 445, 672 P.2d 1098 (1983).

55. No showing trial judge determined to invoke habitual criminal act at in-chambers conference in absence of defendant. State v. Fosnight, 235 Kan. 52, 60, 679 P.2d 174 (1984).

56. Cited in holding diversion agreement in prior DUI case (K.S.A. 8-1567) considered conviction for sentence enhancement. State v. Clevenger, 235 Kan. 864, 866, 683 P.2d 1272 (1984).

57. No prohibition upon enhancing sentences with evidence of prior felonies forming element of separate conviction. State v. Turbeville, 235 Kan. 993, 1004, 686 P.2d 138 (1984).

58. Trial court may consider prior convictions which were available at time of original sentencing, at subsequent resentencing; Bridges v. State, 197 Kan. 704, 421 P.2d 45 (1966) disapproved. State v. Hollingsworth, 236 Kan. 367, 369, 691 P.2d 392 (1984).

59. Act imposed where Class B sentences only doubled; doubling life penalty would be exercise in futility. State v. Pink, 236 Kan. 715, 730, 696 P.2d 358 (1985).

60. Sentence within statutory limits as habitual criminal upheld in absence of any special circumstances showing abuse of discretion. State v. Cunningham, 236 Kan. 842, 846, 695 P.2d 1280 (1985).

61. Copies of attested Kansas court records and authenticated foreign court records constitute competent evidence of prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement. State v. Baker, 237 Kan. 54, 55, 697 P.2d 1267 (1985).

62. Where sentence imposed within terms of statute and mandates in K.S.A. 21-4601 and 21-4606, discretion not abused. State v. Maxwell, 10 Kan. App. 2d 62, 70, 71, 691 P.2d 1316 (1984).

63. Cited in holding habitual violator under K.S.A. 8-285 requires three separate convictions, each based on separate incident. State v. Underwood, 10 Kan. App. 2d 116, 120, 123, 693 P.2d 1205 (1985).

64. Evidence sufficient where defendant's attorney admitted defendant's prior convictions in defendant's presence in stipulations and at sentencing. State v. Myers, 10 Kan. App. 2d 266, 274, 275, 697 P.2d 879 (1985).

65. Noted; consideration of convictions within five years of present offense is consistent with existing case law. City of Chanute v. Wilson, 10 Kan. App. 2d 498, 499, 704 P.2d 392 (1985).

66. Cited; presentence reports not compiled to discover prior convictions for enhancement purposes. State v. Hicks, 11 Kan. App. 2d 76, 88, 714 P.2d 105 (1986).

67. Cited; four consecutive maximum sentences tripled under act; proportionality test not applied. State v. Potts, 11 Kan. App. 2d 95, 100, 713 P.2d 967 (1986).

68. Conviction of unlawful possession of firearm (K.S.A. 21-4204) cannot be enhanced by using evidence of prior felony conviction. State v. Dodd, 11 Kan. App. 2d 513, 519, 728 P.2d 402 (1986).

69. Defendant's out-of-court statements to presentence investigator insufficient competent evidence for enhancement under section. State v. Carmichael, 240 Kan. 149, 727 P.2d 918 (1986).

70. Competency of victim/witness and availability regarding out-of-court statements (K.S.A. 60-460(b)) examined. State v. Hicks, 240 Kan. 302, 729 P.2d 1146 (1986).

71. Cited; trial court's statement at rehearing on sentencing regarding discretion to invoke act examined. State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 519, 731 P.2d 842 (1987).

72. Cited; sentence following plea agreement examined. State v. McQueen, 12 Kan. App. 2d 147, 148, 736 P.2d 947 (1987).

73. Cited; discretion in sentencing hereunder without considering factors in K.S.A. 21-4601 and 21-4606 examined. State v. Kulper, 12 Kan. App. 2d 301, 307, 744 P.2d 519 (1987).

74. Sufficiency of evidence of felony conviction in another state to support sentence enhancement examined. State v. Crichton, 13 Kan. App. 2d 213, 217, 766 P.2d 832 (1989).

75. Sentencing examined where two criminal offenses with identical elements but different penalties involved. State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207, 228, 768 P.2d 268 (1989).

76. Act cannot be invoked where necessary element of the felony (K.S.A. 21-4204) is prior felony conviction. State v. Smith, 245 Kan. 381, 781 P.2d 666 (1989).

77. Sentence enhancement within limits prescribed by law and without partiality, prejudice, oppression or corrupt motive not disturbed on appeal. State v. Trotter, 245 Kan. 657, 664, 783 P.2d 1271 (1989).

78. Sentence hereunder for felony murder and underlying felony examined. State v. Gonzales, 245 Kan. 691, 696, 783 P.2d 1239 (1989).

79. Prior court-martial conviction cannot be used to enhance sentence. State v. Wimberly, 246 Kan. 200, 201, 787 P.2d 729 (1990).

80. Imposition of sentence contrary to plea agreement, when withdrawal of guilty plea permitted examined. State v. Hill, 247 Kan. 377, 378, 799 P.2d 997 (1990).

81. Lack of requirement to change life sentence so good time credits will apply examined. State v. Carmichael, 247 Kan. 619, 620, 801 P.2d 1315 (1990).

82. Review of late challenge to sufficiency of information, effect of plea bargaining examined. State v. Waterberry, 248 Kan. 169, 173, 804 P.2d 1000 (1991).

83. Criminal statutes and penalties in effect at time of offenses are controlling. State v. Mayberry, 248 Kan. 369, 387, 807 P.2d 86 (1991).

84. Error noted in finding defendant advised of appeal rights solely through judicial notice of defendant's experienced counsel; late appeal allowed. State v. McDaniel, 249 Kan. 341, 342, 819 P.2d 1165 (1991).

85. Circumstances justifying maximum enhanced sentence under the statute examined. State v. Evans, 251 Kan. 132, 133, 834 P.2d 335 (1992).

86. Prosecutorial decision to seek hard 40 sentence akin to seeking sentence enhancement only with more safeguards noted. State v. Bailey, 251 Kan. 156, 173, 834 P.2d 342 (1992).

87. Remoteness of prior felony convictions and length of sentence beyond life expectancy examined; enhanced sentence affirmed. State v. Tyler, 251 Kan. 616, 645, 840 P.2d 413 (1992).

88. Enhancement of sentence vacated where commission of second offense occurred before conviction for first offense. State v. Grissom, 251 Kan. 851, 933, 840 P.2d 1142 (1992).

89. Circumstances justifying imposition of enhanced sentence pursuant to habitual criminal act examined. State v. Warren, 252 Kan. 169, 183, 843 P.2d 224 (1992).

90. Prior felony convictions may not be proved by out-of-court statements made by defendant to writer of presentence investigation report. State v. Maggard, 16 Kan. App. 2d 743, 753, 829 P.2d 591 (1992).

91. Prior conviction used to enhance classification cannot also be used to enhance sentence. State v. Geddes, 17 Kan. App. 2d 588, 594, 841 P.2d 1088 (1992).

92. Cited in holding court lacked jurisdiction to convict father of rape of 15 year-old daughter where father also convicted of aggravated kidnapping. Carmichael v. State, 18 Kan. App. 2d 435, 437, 856 P.2d 934 (1993).

93. When prosecution must give defendant notice of intention to invoke habitual criminal act examined. State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 307, 875 P.2d 242 (1994).

94. Whether court erred by sentencing defendant to consecutive hard 40 sentences for two murder convictions examined. State v. Stafford, 255 Kan. 807, 819, 878 P.2d 820 (1994).

95. Which felony convictions may be used to enhance forgery sentence examined; constitutionality and legislative history of section discussed. State v. Greever, 19 Kan. App. 2d 893, 894, 878 P.2d 838 (1994).

96. Whether defendant's current offense is so dissimilar to previous offenses that enhancement of sentence was error examined. State v. Hankins, 19 Kan. App. 2d 1036, 1040, 880 P.2d 271 (1994).

97. Whether defendant's attempted bank robbery conviction may be used to increase sentence under habitual criminal act examined. State v. Brinkley, 256 Kan. 808, 821, 888 P.2d 819 (1995).

98. Whether allowing prosecution to amend habitual criminal act motion to substitute valid for invalid conviction is reversible error examined. State v. Hunt, 257 Kan. 388, 399, 894 P.2d 178 (1995).

99. Whether section is to be applied retroactively examined; purpose of section discussed. Rice v. State, 20 Kan. App. 2d 710, 711, 893 P.2d 252 (1995).

100. Whether judge erred in enhancing defendant's sentence under habitual criminal act examined. State v. Eastridge, 20 Kan. App. 2d 973, 983, 894 P.2d 243 (1995).

101. Conviction for first-degree murder where sentence is life imprisonment may be enhanced under habitual criminal act. State v. Patterson, 257 Kan. 824, 825, 828, 896 P.2d 1056 (1995).

102. Evidence of federal felony conviction sufficient to support sentence enhancement; lack of complete record discussed. State v. Humphrey, 258 Kan. 351, 365; Modified, 258 Kan. 372, 905 P.2d 664 (1995).

103. Cited; defendant's plea for multiple offenses in separate case on same day may be used for KSGA (K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq.) criminal history. State v. Roderick, 259 Kan. 107, 112, 911 P.2d 159 (1996).

104. Collateral attack on prior conviction used to enhance current sentence denied. State v. Chiles, 260 Kan. 75, 80, 917 P.2d 866 (1996).

105. Error to bifurcate multiple prior convictions to enhance both defendant's convictions of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. State v. Rinck, 260 Kan. 634, 636, 637, 645, 923 P.2d 67 (1996).

106. Alleged prosecutorial manipulation of criminal history scores under sentencing guidelines not sufficient to raise equal protection claim. State v. Taylor, 262 Kan. 471, 476, 939 P.2d 904 (1997).

107. Enhanced sentence presumed regular and valid absent showing defendant did not have benefit of counsel at prior conviction. State v. Patterson, 262 Kan. 481, 939 P.2d 909 (1997).

108. Resentencing defendant under habitual criminal act after reversal of enhanced sentence based on insufficient evidence does not violate double jeopardy. State v. Maggard, 24 Kan. App. 2d 868, 869, 953 P.2d 1379 (1998).

109. Defendant's prior convictions for driving with a suspended license need not have predated current offense for habitual criminal act (K.S.A. 21-4504) enhancement purposes. State v. Bandy, 25 Kan. App. 2d 696, 698, 971 P.2d 749 (1998).

110. Consecutive double life sentences for two murders joined under K.S.A. 22-3202 upheld; evidence material to each admissible independent of K.S.A. 60-455. State v. Barksdale, 266 Kan. 498, 506, 973 P.2d 165 (1999).

111. Allegations by petitioner of defense counsel deficiencies did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Reynolds v. Hannigan, 53 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (1999).

112. Defendant with one class A felony is eligible for parole after 15 years even if serving life sentence enhanced by Habitual Criminal Act. Cooper v. Werholtz, 277 Kan. 250, 83 P.3d 1212 (2004).

113. Article 34 of chapter 21 convictions cannot be used to enhance article 37 of chapter 21 convictions. State v. Kimsey, 38 Kan. App. 2d 319, 321, 164 P.3d 841 (2007).

114. Under 1989 version of K.S.A. 21-4504 a sentence cannot be enhanced by convictions from other jurisdictions. State v. Kimsey, 38 Kan. App. 2d 319, 321, 323, 164 P.3d 841 (2007).

115. Legislature explicitly superseded previous sentencing scheme when Kansas sentencing guidelines act adopted. State v. Ruiz-Reyes, 285 Kan. 650, 655, 175 P.3d 849 (2008).

116. Legislature explicitly stated habitual criminal act shall not be applicable to any felony committed on or after July 1, 1993. State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 665, 175 P.3d 840 (2008).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov