Source or Prior Law:

62-2226.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Shift towards rehabilitation as the primary goal of sentencing in the new criminal code, Raymond W. Baker, 10 W.L.J. 269, 273 (1971).

"Expungement of Criminal Convictions in Kansas: A Necessary Rehabilitative Tool," Richard M. Klinge, 13 W.L.J. 93, 102 (1974).

"Creative Punishment: A Study of Effective Sentencing Alternatives," David F. Fisher, 14 W.L.J. 57, 67 (1975).

"Decisions, Decisions, Decisions," Terry L. Bullock, 17 W.L.J. 26, 27 (1977).

Mandatory minimum terms for crimes involving firearms, 26 K.L.R. 277 (1978).

"Steps to Follow in Seeking a Recommended Reduction of Minimum Terms of Confinement After the One Hundred Twenty Day Call Back Motion is Denied," J. Roy Holiday, Jr., 12 J.K.T.L.A. No. 2, p. 19 (1988).

"Review of the Proposed Kansas Sentencing Guidelines," Geary N. Gorup, XIV J.K.T.L.A. No. 5, 10 (1991).

Survey of Recent Cases, 43 K.L.R. 998, 999, 1000, 1001 (1995).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Code; sentencing; community or public service work as condition of probation. 81-98.

Sentencing; probation; incarceration in county jail. 83-103.

Governor's executive powers; judicial powers; community correctional services; parole; probation. 91-161.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Applied; trial court sentencing procedure pursuant to act not erroneous. State v. Collins, 215 Kan. 789, 791, 794, 528 P.2d 1221.

2. Applied; reduction of sentence for life imprisonment (for class A felony) authorized under K.S.A. 21-4603. State v. Sargent, 217 Kan. 634, 635, 637, 638, 538 P.2d 696.

3. Applied; abuse of discretion in sentencing of defendant; remanded for resentencing. State v. Buckner, 223 Kan. 138, 151, 574 P.2d 918.

4. Abuse of judicial discretion in sentencing defendant; remanded for resentencing. State v. Coe, 223 Kan. 153, 170, 574 P.2d 929.

5. Referred to in upholding mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes involving firearms. State v. Freeman, 223 Kan. 362, 364, 370, 574 P.2d 950.

6. Imposition of six consecutive sentences upon defendant convicted as aider and abettor constituted abuse of judicial discretion. State v. Goering, 225 Kan. 755, 760, 763, 594 P.2d 194.

7. Imposition of sentence constituted abuse of sound judicial discretion; discussion of factors considered. Cochrane v. State, 4 Kan. App. 2d 721, 723, 727, 610 P.2d 649.

8. Considered in construing K.S.A. 21-4603 as permitting district court to retain jurisdiction and act on timely motion for probation or sentence reduction after 120-day period. State ex rel. Owens v. Hodge, 230 Kan. 804, 811, 814, 641 P.2d 399 (1982).

9. Court does not have authority to order restitution as part of sentence of imprisonment. State v. Chilcote, 7 Kan. App. 2d 685, 689, 647 P.2d 1349 (1982).

10. Failure to require presentence investigation for defendant sentenced under K.S.A. 21-4618 not prejudicial error. State v. Korbel, 231 Kan. 657, 662, 647 P.2d 1301 (1982).

11. Trial court abused discretion in determining sentence for defendant; sentence set aside. State v. Reeves, 232 Kan. 143, 145, 148, 652 P.2d 713 (1982).

12. Cited in holding direct appeal from sentence following guilty plea permissible under code of criminal procedure. State v. Green, 233 Kan. 1007, 1010, 1011, 666 P.2d 716 (1983).

13. Where sentence imposed within terms of statutes (K.S.A. 21-4501, 21-4504) and mandates herein, discretion not abused. State v. Maxwell, 10 Kan. App. 2d 62, 71, 691 P.2d 1316 (1984).

14. Sentencing judge has no jurisdiction to manipulate release date by granting probation on some and imposing incarceration on other charges. State v. Dubish, 236 Kan. 848, 853, 855, 696 P.2d 969 (1985).

15. Error in relying only on nature of crime and not considering K.S.A. 21-4606 in overcoming presumption of probation (K.S.A. 21-4606a). State v. Linsin, 10 Kan. App. 2d 681, 684, 709 P.2d 988 (1985).

16. Cited; where one convicted of crime has never been legally sentenced, proper sentence may be imposed later. State v. Osbey, 238 Kan. 280, 288, 710 P.2d 676 (1985).

17. No provision in chapter 21, article 46, covering sentencing, authorizing district court to commit to custody of community corrections. State v. Fowler, 238 Kan. 326, 333, 710 P.2d 1268 (1985).

18. Cited; vehicular homicide (K.S.A. 21-3405), DUI (K.S.A. 8-1567) convictions; maximum and consecutive sentences, restitution sentence discussed. State v. McNaught, 238 Kan. 567, 586, 713 P.2d 457 (1986).

19. Cited and discussed; helpful to Supreme Court when trial judge states factors considered important in imposing sentence. State v. Harrold, 239 Kan. 645, 646, 652, 722 P.2d 563 (1986).

20. Six consecutive sentences, while severe, were not abuse of discretion. State v. Louis, 240 Kan. 175, 184, 185, 727 P.2d 483 (1986).

21. Statute expresses objectives of correctional process; sentencing judge need not expressly consider it. State v. Jennings, 240 Kan. 377, 380, 381, 729 P.2d 454 (1986).

22. Cited; classification of aggravated indecent liberties (K.S.A. 21-3504) under prior law examined. State v. Ramos, 240 Kan. 485, 489, 731 P.2d 837 (1987).

23. Cited; sentence within statutory limits, consideration of alternatives in light of presentence and psychological reports examined. State v. Hamilton, 240 Kan. 539, 540, 731 P.2d 863 (1987).

24. Cited; sentence following plea agreement examined. State v. McQueen, 12 Kan. App. 2d 147, 149, 736 P.2d 947 (1987).

25. Cited; judicial conduct supporting censure proceedings, fair sentencing proceedings, sentencing guidelines examined. State v. Lake, 12 Kan. App. 2d 275, 276, 740 P.2d 106 (1987).

26. Cited; discretion in sentencing under habitual criminal act (K.S.A. 21-4504) without considering factors herein examined. State v. Kulper, 12 Kan. App. 2d 301, 744 P.2d 519 (1987).

27. Cited; guidance in construing sentencing, criteria to consider in sentencing (K.S.A. 21-4606) examined. State v. McGlothlin, 242 Kan. 437, 438, 747 P.2d 1335 (1988).

28. Sentencing court not required to specifically consider objectives of corrections system as it must the factors in K.S.A. 21-4606. State v. Webb, 242 Kan. 519, 530, 748 P.2d 875 (1988).

29. Cited; presumption in favor of probation (K.S.A. 21-4606a) examined where first convictions are Class E felonies. State v. Knabe, 243 Kan. 538, 540, 757 P.2d 308 (1988).

30. Objectives and policies herein do not allow sentencing court to compel production of documents pertaining to conditions at correctional institutions. State ex rel. Stephan v. Clark, 243 Kan. 561, 567, 568, 759 P.2d 119 (1988).

31. Time limits on district court's jurisdiction to modify sentences and exceptions thereto (K.S.A. 21-4603(3)) examined. State v. Saft, 244 Kan. 517, 518, 769 P.2d 675 (1989).

32. Statutory presumption of probation (K.S.A. 21-4606a) may be overcome by considerations herein including prior criminal conduct. State v. VanReed, 245 Kan. 213, 220, 777 P.2d 794 (1989).

33. Mere reference to and adoption of presentence investigation report insufficient to overcome legislative presumption in K.S.A. 21-4606a. State v. Tittes, 245 Kan. 708, 715, 784 P.2d 359 (1989).

34. No abuse of discretion in sentencing determined where court carefully considered factors herein. State v. Gibson, 246 Kan. 298, 304, 787 P.2d 1176 (1990).

35. Requirement of court to apply provisions of K.S.A. 21-4606b once presumption of probation in K.S.A. 21-4606a overcome determined. State v. Atwell, 14 Kan. App. 2d 752, 753, 798 P.2d 517 (1990).

36. Presumptive sentencing statutes examined; trial court's obligation to read article 46 as a whole noted. State v. Ray, 15 Kan. App. 2d 1, 2, 800 P.2d 148 (1990).

37. Sentences disparate from comparable offenses of codefendant examined. State v. Stallings, 246 Kan. 642, 650, 792 P.2d 1013 (1990).

38. Minimum controlling sentence exceeding defendant's life expectancy not per se oppressive or an abuse of discretion. State v. Nunn, 247 Kan. 576, 580, 802 P.2d 547 (1990).

39. Court lacks authority to require defendant to serve time in county jail as condition of probation. State v. Walbridge, 248 Kan. 65, 69, 805 P.2d 15 (1991).

40. Trial court's consideration of events occurring after crime for which defendant is being sentenced held permissible. State v. Hannah, 248 Kan. 141, 145, 804 P.2d 990 (1991).

41. Mandate in 1989 Supp. 21-4603(3)(a) (now 1990 Supp. 21-4603(4)(a)) regarding sentence modification examined in depth; held constitutional. State v. Reed, 248 Kan. 792, 793, 799, 811 P.2d 1163 (1991).

42. Fact that minimum sentence exceeds life expectancy not grounds per se for finding sentence oppressive or an abuse of discretion. State v. McDaniel, 249 Kan. 341, 346, 819 P.2d 1165 (1991).

43. District court's failure to follow policy set forth in statute held abuse of discretion; consideration of criteria in K.S.A. 21-4606. State v. Fisher, 249 Kan. 649, 650, 652, 822 P.2d 602 (1991).

44. Appellate court review of minimum sentence not involving presumptive probation after plea of guilty or nolo contendere examined. State v. Salinas, 15 Kan. App. 2d 578, 811 P.2d 525 (1991).

45. Overcoming presumption of probation contained in K.S.A. 21-4606a by evaluating all circumstances and factors in K.S.A. 21-4606 and herein examined. State v. Ribadeneira, 15 Kan. App. 2d 734, 748, 817 P.2d 1105 (1991).

46. Court must consider objectives of this section in determining whether presumption of K.S.A. 21-4606b is overcome. State v. Turner, 16 Kan. App. 2d 221, 226, 820 P.2d 1251 (1991).

47. Where defendant enters plea bargain with specific sentence recommendations and court imposes recommended sentences, defendant cannot seek application of sentencing factors in K.S.A. 21-4601 and 21-4606. State v. Crawford, 250 Kan. 174, 175, 177, 824 P.2d 951 (1992).

48. In denying presumptive sentencing to community corrections, court must consider sentencing factors, individual treatment, and aggravating circumstances. State v. Turner, 251 Kan. 43, 833 P.2d 921 (1992).

49. Imposition of statutory minimum sentence as not subject to abuse of discretion allegation noted. State v. Beechum, 251 Kan. 194, 199, 202, 833 P.2d 988 (1992).

50. Circumstances justifying imposition of enhanced sentence pursuant to habitual criminal act examined. State v. Warren, 252 Kan. 169, 184, 843 P.2d 224 (1992).

51. Imposition of minimum sentence noted as not resulting in "manifest injustice" where firearm used in commission of crime (K.S.A. 21-4618(3)). State v. Turley, 17 Kan. App. 2d 484, 490, 840 P.2d 529 (1992).

52. Cited; sentencing judge abused discretion when he failed to consider mandate of K.S.A. 21-4606. State v. Richard, 252 Kan. 872, 880, 850 P.2d 844 (1993).

53. When defendant may be sentenced in absentia, harshness of sentences as abuse of discretion examined. State v. Braun, 253 Kan. 141, 148, 853 P.2d 686 (1993).

54. Statute applies to sentencing only and not to modification of sentence. State v. Mareska, 253 Kan. 431, 432, 855 P.2d 954 (1993).

55. Application of presumptions in K.S.A. 21-4606a and 21-4606b to person with prior juvenile adjudication coupled with consideration of K.S.A. 21-4601 and 21-4606 examined. State v. Smith, 18 Kan. App. 2d 297, 851 P.2d 397 (1993).

56. District court's failure to expressly consider on the record sentencing objectives not abuse of discretion upon facts stated. State v. Lara, 18 Kan. App. 2d 386, 394, 853 P.2d 1168 (1993).

57. No credit allowed toward controlling sentence (K.S.A. 21-4614a) for time spent under house arrest (K.S.A. 21-4603b); inpatient drug treatment issue remanded. State v. Williams, 18 Kan. App. 2d 424, 426, 856 P.2d 158 (1993).

58. Trial court precluded from imposing jail time as condition of probation for misdemeanor conviction (K.S.A. 21-4602(3)). State v. Kohlman, 18 Kan. App. 2d 432, 433, 854 P.2d 318 (1993).

59. Whether consideration of presumptive sentence is waived by defendant's entry into plea agreement with recommended sentence examined. State v. O'Connell, 18 Kan. App. 2d 895, 896, 861 P.2d 138 (1993).

60. When defendant bargains for and receives recommended sentence, consideration of sentencing factors by trial court is waived. State v. Edwards, 254 Kan. 489, 490, 867 P.2d 355 (1994).

61. Whether the factors in K.S.A. 21-4606 are considered indicative of factors to be considered under section examined. State v. Rodriguez, 254 Kan. 768, 778, 869 P.2d 631 (1994).

62. Cited; whether defendant's exclusion from limited retroactivity provision of state sentencing guidelines violates equal protection examined. Chiles v. State, 254 Kan. 888, 898, 869 P.2d 707 (1994).

63. Whether defendant waives consideration of sentencing factors and presumptive sentence when requesting plea bargain sentence recommendation examined. State v. Moses, 255 Kan. 56, 57, 63, 872 P.2d 265 (1994).

64. Whether trial court erred in denying defendant's request for psychological evaluation before sentence modification hearing examined. State v. Ji, 255 Kan. 101, 113, 872 P.2d 748 (1994).

65. Whether trial court abused discretion by allegedly failing to consider section in sentencing examined. State v. Johnson, 255 Kan. 156, 162, 872 P.2d 247 (1994).

66. Whether trial court abused discretion by sentencing defendant to maximum sentence examined. State v. Redmon, 255 Kan. 220, 224, 873 P.2d 1350 (1994).

67. Whether defendant's claim of innocence in trial testimony may be used as a factor in sentencing examined. State v. Manzanares, 19 Kan. App. 2d 214, 225, 866 P.2d 1083 (1994).

68. Whether court's sentence of mandatory imprisonment for alleged battered woman resulted in manifest injustice examined. State v. Coleman, 19 Kan. App. 2d 412, 417, 870 P.2d 695 (1994).

69. Whether second motion to modify sentence after first denied must be filed within 120 days of conviction examined. State v. Hervey, 19 Kan. App. 2d 498, 499, 506, 873 P.2d 188 (1994).

70. Whether trial court abused discretion by sentencing defendant excessively examined. State v. Johnson, 255 Kan. 252, 260, 874 P.2d 623 (1994).

71. Whether court failed to exercise discretion in denying defendant's motion to modify sentence examined. State v. Bruce, 255 Kan. 388, 399, 874 P.2d 1165 (1994).

72. Whether court abused discretion by making an inadequate record of statutory factors in imposing greater than minimum sentence examined. State v. Davis, 256 Kan. 1, 25, 28, 883 P.2d 735 (1994).

73. Whether court abused discretion in imposing maximum sentence without considering statutory mandates examined. State v. McCloud, 256 Kan. 178, 182, 883 P.2d 775 (1994).

74. Whether sentencing judge's failure to state on record specific consideration of sentencing factors constitutes reversible error examined. State v. Dotson, 256 Kan. 406, 414, 886 P.2d 356 (1994).

75. Whether sentencing court failed to consider statutory sentencing factors examined. State v. Walton, 256 Kan. 484, 489, 885 P.2d 1255 (1994).

76. Whether strict application of the rules of evidence apply to sentencing proceedings examined. State v. Sims, 256 Kan. 533, 545, 887 P.2d 72 (1994).

77. Whether court failed to state reasons for giving defendant disproportionately longer sentence than codefendant examined. State v. Kelly, 19 Kan. App. 2d 625, 632, 874 P.2d 1208 (1994).

78. Whether court erred by allegedly considering only one statutory factor in sentencing examined. State v. Grant, 19 Kan. App. 2d 686, 695, 875 P.2d 986 (1994).

79. Whether court erred by assuming consecutive sentences for probation violation; K.S.A. 21-4608(1) takes precedence over K.S.A. 21-4608(4). State v. Owens, 19 Kan. App. 2d 773, 776, 875 P.2d 1007 (1994).

80. Whether sentence should be vacated because record reflects no consideration of sentencing policy examined. State v. Rinck, 256 Kan. 848, 856, 888 P.2d 845 (1995).

81. Whether abuse of discretion is standard of review where defendant asserts disparity of sentence with codefendant examined. State v. Hegwood, 256 Kan. 901, 908, 888 P.2d 856 (1995).

82. Whether judge abused discretion by failing to consider defendant's individual characteristics examined. State v. McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 8, 891 P.2d 324 (1995).

83. Whether trial court abused discretion in imposing maximum sentence without consideration of sentencing policies and factors examined. State v. Manning, 257 Kan. 128, 131, 891 P.2d 365 (1995).

84. Whether court abused discretion by not considering defendant's individual circumstances at sentencing examined. State v. Ricks, 257 Kan. 435, 441, 894 P.2d 191 (1995).

85. Whether judge's comments at sentencing indicate a bias against pedophiles examined. State v. Fierro, 257 Kan. 639, 651, 895 P.2d 186 (1995).

86. Whether judge abused discretion by improperly denying defendant probation examined. State v. Gambrel, 20 Kan. App. 2d 944, 949, 894 P.2d 235 (1995).

87. Sentencing court adequately considered sentencing factors in imposing lengthy sentence. State v. Hill, 257 Kan. 774, 790, 895 P.2d 1238 (1995).

88. Once appeal from motion to modify sentence is decided, courts have no jurisdiction to hear second motion to modify. State v. Waterbury, 258 Kan. 614, 618, 907 P.2d 858 (1995).

89. Defendant has no right to request court to modify sentence after KSGA (K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq.) effective date. State v. Bost, 21 Kan. App. 2d 560, 565, 903 P.2d 160 (1995).

90. Inpatient drug treatment program probation condition qualifies for jail time credit; K.S.A. 21-4614a liberally construed. State v. Theis, 262 Kan. 4, 936 P.2d 710 (1997).

91. Trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting impact statement of murder victim's sister-in-law. State v. Parks, 265 Kan. 644, 648, 962 P.2d 486 (1998).

92. No abuse of trial court's discretion in denying defendant's motion to modify his sentence. State v. Lee, 266 Kan. 1044, 1046, 975 P.2d 1208 (1999).

93. Drug treatment sanction trumps the prison sanction outlined in K.S.A. 21-4603d (f)(3). State v. Casey, 42 Kan. App. 2d 309, 211 P.3d 847 (2009).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov