Source or prior law:

62-2239.

Revisor’s Note:

Section was amended twice in 1988 session, see also, 21-4603a.

Section was amended twice in 1989 session, see also, 21-4603c.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Probation and sentencing for certain crimes involving use of firearms, see 21-4618.

Female felons committed to secretary of corrections, see 75-5229.

Juvenile traffic offenders, see, also, 8-2117.

Terms of imprisonment, see 21-4501, 21-4502, 21-4504, 21-4606, 21-4608.

Fines, see 21-4503, 21-4607.

Probation and suspension of sentence, see 21-4610, 21-4610a, 21-4611.

Restitution in DUI cases, see 8-1019.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

In most cases the appeal may be taken within 130 days from the date of sentence, Richard H. Seaton and Paul E. Wilson, 39 J.B.A.K. 97, 170 (1970).

“The Kansas State Reception and Diagnostic Center: An Empirical Study,” 19 K.L.R. 821, 824, 827 (1971).

Court’s power to modify sentence discussed in “Collateral Challenges to Criminal Convictions,” Keith G. Meyer and Larry W. Yackle, 21 K.L.R. 259, 264, 319 (1973).

“Creative Punishment: A Study of Effective Sentencing Alternatives,” David F. Fisher, 14 W.L.J. 57, 62 (1975).

“The Senselessness of Sentencing,” Karl A. Menninger II and Karl A. Menninger, M.D., 14 W.L.J. 241, 243 (1975).

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

This and following section cited in note concerning mandatory minimum terms for crimes involving firearms, 26 K.L.R. 277 (1978).

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

Conflict between paragraph (2) (d) and Mandatory Sentencing Act (21-4618); mandatory minimum terms for crimes involving firearms, 26 K.L.R. 277 (1978).

“Toward Certainty in Sentencing: Kansas Modifies the Indeterminate Sentence,” Wayne K. Westblade, 18 W.L.J. 578, 579 (1979).

“Survey of Kansas Law: Criminal Law and Procedure,” Keith G. Meyer, 27 K.L.R. 391, 394, 395 (1979).

“Kansas Diversion: Defendant’s Remedies and Prosecutorial Opportunities,” Joseph Brian Cox, 20 W.L.J. 344, 345, 348, 350, 356, 367 (1981).

“A Comment on Kansas’ New Drunk Driving Law,” Joseph Brian Cox and Donald G. Strole, 51 J.K.B.A. 230, 241 (1982).

“Survey of Kansas Law: Criminal Law,” Robert A. Wason, 32 K.L.R. 395, 415 (1984).

“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).

“Forensic Psychiatry: Less Typical Applications,” Roy B. Lacoursiere, M.D., 30 W.L.J. 29, 40 (1990).

“Review of the Proposed Kansas Sentencing Guidelines,” Geary N. Gorup, XIV J.K.T.L.A. No. 5, 15 (1991).

“Parole in Kansas,” Carla J. Stovall, 60 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 27, 28 (1991).

Survey of Recent Cases, 43 K.L.R. 997, 1003 (1995).

“Criminal Procedure Review: Survey of Recent Cases,” 44 K.L.R. 895 (1996).

Survey of Recent Cases, 45 K.L.R. 1394 (1997).

Survey of Recent Cases, 46 K.L.R. 918, 928 (1998).

“Habeas Corpus in Kansas: The Great Writ Affords Postconviction Relief at K.S.A. 60-1507,” Martha J. Coffman, 67 J.K.B.A. No. 1, 16 (1998).

“The Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act,” Robert J. Lewis, Jr., 38 W.L.J. 327 (1999).

“Criminal Procedure Survey of Recent Cases,” 50 K.L.R. 901 (2002).

“2002 Legislative Wrap-Up,” Paul T. Davis, 71 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 15 (2002).

“Relating Kansas Offenses,” Tom Stacy, 56 K.L.R. 831 (2008).

Attorney General’s Opinions:

Release procedures; parole authority and procedure. 79-183.

Second or subsequent convictions of driving while intoxicated. 80-139.

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

Costs in criminal cases; liability for costs. 84-25.

Farm animal and research facilities protection act; (K.S.A. 47-1825 et seq.). 90-72.

Powers of counties under community corrections act; DUI offenses; work release programs. 91-57.

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

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; sentencing. 92-2.

Sentencing; authorized dispositions; sentencing; probation; costs; home rule powers. 92-90.

Trial court may not order interest as part of restitution from person convicted of theft of obtaining ineligible unemployment compensation. 92-107.

Neither court services officers nor community corrections officers have unilateral authority to restrict the liberty of those under their supervision. 93-11.

Removal of voters’ names from registration lists; basis for removal; conviction of felony; constitutionality. 93-68.

Driving under the influence; place of incarceration for third or subsequent offense; penalties. 94-43.

Community correctional officer held not a law enforcement officer under law enforcement training act. 96-33.

Requirement of persons confined or under court supervision to give blood and saliva specimens for inclusion in FBI’s DNA index. 2001-45.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Decision of trial court denying probation not subject to review. State v. Benson, 207 K. 453, 458, 485 P.2d 1266.

2. Cited; rules governing sentencing to be rigidly followed. State v. Frye, 209 K. 520, 522, 496 P.2d 1403.

3. Mentioned; evaluation of defendant from reception and diagnostic center not newly discovered evidence entitling defendant to new trial. State v. Lora, 213 K. 184, 194, 515 P.2d 1086.

4. Construed; reduction of life imprisonment sentence (for class A felony) authorized where recommended by secretary. State v. Sargent, 217 K. 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641, 538 P.2d 696.

5. No abuse of discretion in denying motion to reduce confinement; right to appeal. State v. Caldrone, 218 K. 471, 472, 473, 474, 543 P.2d 1028.

6. Probation and suspension of sentence are exclusive functions of trial court and not subject to review. State v. Adams, 218 K. 495, 504, 505, 545 P.2d 1134.

7. Construed with 22-3717; court in accepting nolo contendere plea not required to advise as to parole eligibility. Hicks v. State, 220 K. 279, 282, 552 P.2d 889.

8. Failure to file appeal within time prescribed by this section and 22-3608; appeal dismissed. State v. Thompson, 221 K. 165, 166, 558 P.2d 93.

9. Under 21-4618 a defendant can be granted probation or sentence can be suspended (dissenting opinion). Esters v. State, 1 K.A.2d 503, 506, 507, 571 P.2d 32.

10. Under facts, defendant not required to furnish evidence against himself. State v. Coe, 223 K. 153, 165, 166, 574 P.2d 929.

11. Paragraph (2) applied; appeal from conviction of aggravated robbery not filed within statutory time. State v. Smith, 223 K. 47, 573 P.2d 985.

12. Probation may not be revoked unless failure to comply with the terms of probation. Swope v. Musser, 223 K. 133, 134, 573 P.2d 587.

13. Denial of motion to modify minimum sentence imposed under 21-4618 for lack of jurisdiction affirmed. State v. Rios, 225 K. 613, 592 P.2d 467.

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

15. When probation is revoked, jail time credit may not be given by court for time in halfway house. State v. Babcock, 226 K. 356, 358, 362, 363, 597 P.2d 1117.

16. Sentencing judge may consider falsity of defendant’s testimony; prosecutor’s statements at sentencing not prejudicial. State v. May, 227 K. 393, 398, 607 P.2d 72.

17. Appeal not timely filed under this section and 22-3608. State v. Moses, 227 K. 400, 401, 402, 404, 607 P.2d 477.

18. Cited; no right of appeal from denial of sentence modification motion filed more than 130 days after sentencing. State v. Henning, 3 K.A.2d 607, 599 P.2d 318.

19. Defendant received maximum sentence possible with parole not available until serving minimum sentence. State v. Ramsey, 228 K. 127, 134, 612 P.2d 603.

20. Imposition of sentence constituted abuse of sound judicial discretion; discussion of factors considered. Cochrane v. State, 4 K.A.2d 721, 726, 727, 728, 610 P.2d 649.

21. Trial judges must articulate facts and factors considered in imposing sentence. State v. McDaniel & Owens, 228 K. 172, 185, 612 P.2d 1231.

22. Trial court not required to state reasons for imposing the sentence as ordered. State v. Wilson, 6 K.A.2d 302, 303, 627 P.2d 1185.

23. Suspension of sentence hereunder for conviction of aggravated assault unlawful; 21-4618 requires sentence of imprisonment. State v. Johnson, 6 K.A.2d 750, 753, 754, 756, 634 P.2d 1137 (1981).

24. Filing of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional; appeal not taken within the time period fixed hereby must be dismissed; exception to general rule noted. State v. Ortiz, 230 K. 733, 735, 640 P.2d 1255 (1982).

25. Trial court’s jurisdiction ends when appeal docketed; modification of sentence only upon mandate of appellate court or upon remand. State v. Dedman, 230 K. 793, 796, 640 P.2d 1266 (1982).

26. District court retains jurisdiction to act on motion for probation or reduction of sentence at expiration of 120-day period if motion timely filed. State ex rel. Owens v. Hodge, 230 K. 804, 805, 807, 809, 813, 814, 641 P.2d 399 (1982).

27. Court does not have authority to order restitution as part of sentence of imprisonment. State v. Chilcote, 7 K.A.2d 685, 689, 690, 691, 647 P.2d 1349 (1982).

28. The secretary of corrections can only recommend a reduction in a sentence; reinstatement of a legally entered sentence to correct an illegal modification does not constitute double jeopardy. Barr v. State, 8 K.A.2d 173, 174, 651 P.2d 975 (1982).

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

30. Continuing trial court jurisdiction includes modification of restitution order to substitute secondarily aggrieved party for original aggrieved party. State v. Yost, 232 K. 370, 372, 654 P.2d 458 (1982).

31. Cited in holding direct appeal from sentence following guilty plea permissible under code of criminal procedure. State v. Green, 233 K. 1007, 1008, 1011, 666 P.2d 716 (1983).

32. Cited in construing the enforcement of law exception under 75-6104(c). Cansler v. State, 234 K. 554, 568, 675 P.2d 57 (1984).

33. Motion to modify sentence under (3) relates to direct appeal; time not extended by collateral proceeding under 60-1507. State v. Timmerman, 236 K. 414, 416, 691 P.2d 33 (1984).

34. Cited in holding legislative intent is imposition of mandatory minimum sentence when firearm used, 21-4618. State v. Keeley, 236 K. 555, 559, 694 P.2d 422 (1985).

35. To allow modification of sentence or probation would defeat legislative purpose of 21-4618. State v. Coley, 236 K. 672, 676, 694 P.2d 479 (1985).

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

37. Cited in holding defendant released on bond after conviction, but prior to sentencing, subject to mandatory consecutive sentencing provisions of 21-4608. State v. Sayles, 10 K.A.2d 180, 181, 694 P.2d 918 (1985).

38. Limitation on appeal linked to time court may modify sentence. State v. Myers, 10 K.A.2d 266, 269, 697 P.2d 879 (1985).

39. Appeal of conviction must be within time periods herein and 22-3608, regardless of probation and subsequent revocation. State v. Tripp, 237 K. 244, 246, 699 P.2d 33 (1985).

40. Cited; error in relying only on nature of crime and not considering 21-4601 and 21-4606 in overcoming presumptive sentence (21-4606a). State v. Linsin, 10 K.A.2d 681, 682, 684, 709 P.2d 988 (1985).

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

42. District court lacks authority in felony case to commit to community corrections facility except as condition of probation. State v. Fowler, 238 K. 326, 333, 710 P.2d 1268 (1985).

43. Cited; vehicular homicide (21-3405), DUI (8-1567) convictions; trial court may not imprison defendant and also require restitution. State v. McNaught, 238 K. 567, 588, 713 P.2d 457 (1986).

44. Cited; sentencing court’s specifying amount of restitution owed for parole or probation purposes (22-3717) examined. Tucker v. State, 11 K.A.2d 51, 53, 711 P.2d 1343 (1986).

45. Improper to order immediate restitution and incarceration at same time because the two not harmonious. State v. Hicks, 11 K.A.2d 76, 89, 714 P.2d 105 (1986).

46. Sentencing judgment is a judicial function which cannot be delegated by trial court; initial grant or denial of probation is part of sentencing process not to be arbitrarily dispensed with. State v. Owens & Car lisle, 210 K. 628, 634, 635, 636, 504 P.2d 249 (1972).

47. Trial court may not order imprisonment and restitution; restitution proper with suspended sentence or probation or as guide for parole board. State v. Bowers, 239 K. 417, 427, 721 P.2d 268 (1986).

48. Cited; six consecutive sentences, while severe, were not abuse of discretion (21-4601, 21-4606). State v. Louis, 240 K. 175, 185, 727 P.2d 483 (1986).

49. Defendant has no right to hearing on motion to modify sentence or be present if motion considered. State v. Jennings, 240 K. 377, 379, 729 P.2d 454 (1986).

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

51. Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination extends at least through sentencing; direct contempt adjudication reversed. State v. Rucas, 12 K.A.2d 68, 73, 734 P.2d 673 (1987).

52. Cited; denial of motion allowing late filing of appeal where no indication to appeal found in record examined. State v. Cook, 12 K.A.2d 309, 310, 741 P.2d 379 (1987).

53. Cited; when motion to modify acts as probation request, no direct appeal from probation denial (22-3602) examined. State v. Deavours, 12 K.A.2d 361, 743 P.2d 1011 (1987).

54. Cited; appeal times controlling (22-3608) with and without imposition of sentence (21-4603) determined. State v. Wagner, 242 K. 329, 747 P.2d 114 (1987).

55. Cited; specific findings required of court before imposing fine (21-4607) examined. State v. McGlothlin, 242 K. 437, 439, 747 P.2d 1335 (1988).

56. Cited; indigent defendant’s right to transcript of sentencing hearing following denial of sentence modification examined. State v. Duckett, 13 K.A.2d 122, 125, 764 P.2d 134 (1988).

57. Sentencing court may recommend but not determine in which institution defendant will be confined; secretary of corrections decides. State ex rel. Stephan v. Clark, 243 K. 561, 565, 759 P.2d 119 (1988).

58. Time limits on district court’s jurisdiction to modify sentences and exceptions thereto determined. State v. Saft, 244 K. 517, 518, 769 P.2d 675 (1989).

59. Direct appeal at any time from sentence imposed when purpose is to challenge legality of sentence examined. State v. D.L.P., 13 K.A.2d 647, 649, 778 P.2d 851 (1989).

60. Statute irrelevant to issue of imposition of statutorily fixed costs; relevant to discretion in imposing lesser sentence. State v. Garrett, 14 K.A.2d 8, 10, 780 P.2d 168 (1989).

61. Appeal from probation denial following guilty plea where statutory presumption of probation applies (21-4606a) examined. State v. VanReed, 245 K. 213, 777 P.2d 794 (1989).

62. Defendant has right to counsel on motion to modify sentence only when court determines hearing should be held. State v. Pierce, 246 K. 183, 198, 787 P.2d 1189 (1990).

63. Consequences of third or subsequent conviction of driving with suspended license determined. State v. Harpool, 246 K. 226, 227, 788 P.2d 281 (1990).

64. Petition for certiorari with U.S. Supreme Court does not extend filing time for motion to modify sentence. State v. Miller, 246 K. 445, 449, 790 P.2d 419 (1990).

65. Trial court’s authority to impose jail time as condition of probation (21-4610) examined. State v. Walbridge, 14 K.A.2d 483, 794 P.2d 316 (1990); reversed 248 K. 65, 805 P.2d 15 (1991).

66. Change in statute providing district court “shall” modify a sentence is substantive in nature and applicable prospectively. State v. Marks, 14 K.A.2d 594, 599, 796 P.2d 174 (1990).

67. Change in statute providing district court “shall” modify a sentence is substantive in nature and applicable prospectively. State v. Sylva, 14 K.A.2d 609, 612, 796 P.2d 174 (1990); affirmed 248 K. 118, 804 P.2d 967 (1991).

68. Direct appeal from court’s rejection of SRDC recommendation permitted; recommendation must be unequivocal before court relieved of making findings set forth. State v. Moon, 15 K.A.2d 4, 7, 10, 801 P.2d 59 (1990).

69. Piecemeal appeals as frowned upon noted; appeal must be filed within statutory time allowed. State v. Neer, 247 K. 137, 144, 795 P.2d 362 (1990).

70. No requirement that life sentence be changed to term of years; question of good time credits is one for legislature. State v. Carmichael, 247 K. 619, 622, 623, 801 P.2d 1315 (1990).

71. Change in statute providing district court “shall” modify a sentence is substantive in nature and applicable prospectively. State v. Sutherland, 248 K. 96, 108, 804 P.2d 970 (1991).

72. 1989 Supp. 21-4603(3)(a) (now 1990 Supp. 21-4603(4)(a)) held constitutional and not a violation of separation of powers doctrine. State v. Reed, 248 K. 792, 801, 811 P.2d 1163 (1991).

73. Error to find defendant advised of appeal rights solely through judicial notice of defendant’s experienced counsel; late appeal allowed. State v. McDaniel, 249 K. 341, 344, 345, 819 P.2d 1165 (1991).

74. Sufficiency of language of order of court declining to adopt recommendations of SRDC considered. State v. Boomgaarn, 249 K. 673, 674, 677, 822 P.2d 605 (1991).

75. Provisions herein apply only to sentences imposed for crimes committed subsequent to its effective date. State v. McNett, 15 K.A.2d 291, 295, 807 P.2d 171 (1991).

76. Period for timely filing notice of appeal from judgment of magistrate court (22-3609a) examined. State v. Wilson, 15 K.A.2d 308, 311, 808 P.2d 434 (1991).

77. As a general rule, decision denying probation is not subject to appellate rule. State v. Bruner, 15 K.A.2d 369, 370, 808 P.2d 440 (1991).

78. Refusal to modify sentences in excess of minimum, reference to sentencing factors and SRDC report examined. State v. Grimsley, 15 K.A.2d 441, 447, 808 P.2d 1387 (1991).

79. Lack of authority for boards of parole to impose sentences on defendants noted. State v. Blackmore, 15 K.A.2d 539, 544, 811 P.2d 54 (1991).

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

81. Noted in holding that amendment to 22-3404 eliminating right to jury trial for traffic infractions operates prospectively only. State v. Chapman, 15 K.A.2d 643, 646, 814 P.2d 449 (1991).

82. Trial court prohibited from vacating original sentence and imposing harsher one. State v. Zirkle, 15 K.A.2d 674, 678, 814 P.2d 452 (1991).

83. For purposes of appeal, imposition of minimum sentence is denial of probation or other dispositions under subsection (2)(b) through (i). State v. Ramsey, 16 K.A.2d 132, 135, 819 P.2d 667 (1991).

84. Creation of a liberty interest of prisoner in recommendation for sentence modification examined. Goddard v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 16 K.A.2d 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 824 P.2d 991 (1992).

85. Restitution is a civil remedy. In re Kirk, 38 B.R. 257, 260 (1984).

86. Circumstances justifying maximum enhanced sentence under the statute examined. State v. Evans, 251 K. 132, 141, 834 P.2d 335 (1992).

87. Trial court not authorized to order defendant to pay restitution while incarcerated. State v. DeHerrera, 251 K. 143, 155, 834 P.2d 918 (1992).

88. Unless sentence exceeds statutory minimum, there is no basis upon which defendant can allege abuse of discretion. State v. Beechum, 251 K. 194, 201, 202, 833 P.2d 988 (1992).

89. Trial court may not sentence defendant to imprisonment and also require immediate restitution. State v. Clemons, 251 K. 473, 488, 836 P.2d 1147 (1992).

90. Second trial judge’s obligation to consider sentence imposed on codefendant when sentencing defendant to longer term examined. State v. Bailey, 251 K. 527, 834 P.2d 1353 (1992).

91. Cited in opinion that 22-3717 has no application to trial court’s ruling regarding probation. State v. Lumbrera, 252 K. 54, 73, 845 P.2d 609 (1992).

92. Remanded, SRDC recommendation for modified sentence controls unless court finds public endangered or inmate’s welfare not served. State v. Childers, 16 K.A.2d 605, 617, 618, 830 P.2d 50 (1992).

93. Not sufficient for trial court to reject in general terms recommendation of Topeka correctional facility-east. State v. Huskey, 17 K.A.2d 237, 834 P.2d 1371 (1992).

94. Trial court erred in not granting probation as recommended by TCF or in lieu thereof making findings required herein. State v. Dugan, 17 K.A.2d 340, 344, 836 P.2d 584 (1992).

95. Defendant allowed one request for modification of sentence, either before or after appeal. State v. Smith, 17 K.A.2d 746, 747, 843 P.2d 297 (1992).

96. Cited in holding once a sentence is imposed, court is powerless to vacate that sentence and impose a harsher sentence. State v. Royce, 252 K. 394, 396, 397, 845 P.2d 44 (1993).

97. Defendant’s pro se motion for new trial viewed as post-conviction motion preceding appeal; appointment of counsel neither constitutionally nor statutorily required. State v. Kingsley, 252 K. 761, 767, 851 P.2d 370 (1993).

98. Sentence was in statutory guidelines and court did not err in denying motion for sentence modification. State v. Fish, 252 K. 985, 988, 850 P.2d 250 (1993).

99. District court jurisdiction to hear second motion to modify sentence following adverse ruling on appeal of conviction examined. State v. Reed, 253 K. 154, 853 P.2d 50 (1993).

100. Where no new significant information contained in report nor recommendation to modify, provisions in (4) not applicable. State v. Mareska, 253 K. 431, 433, 855 P.2d 954 (1993).

101. Affirmation of order denying motion to modify sentence does not refresh period for filing such motions. State v. Smith, 254 K. 16, 19, 864 P.2d 1208 (1993).

102. Requirement that trial court accept plea and make finding of guilt for conviction to stand examined. State v. Morse, 18 K.A.2d. 268, 270, 855 P.2d 87 (1993).

103. District court may not deny defendant’s motion to modify sentence absent evaluation pursuant to 75-5220 and 75-5262. State v. Tillman, 18 K.A.2d 556, 558, 858 P.2d 1219 (1993).

104. Trial judge does not per se violate defendant’s rights by ex parte communication with TCF warden requesting reevaluation and sending required documents. State v. Fryar, 18 K.A.2d 576, 579, 856 P.2d 512 (1993).

105. Effect of judge’s failure to articulate acceptance of guilty plea on validity of conviction and plea examined. State v. Jacobson, 18 K.A.2d 788, 791, 793, 860 P.2d 47 (1993).

106. Whether consideration of presumptive sentence is waived by defendant’s entry into plea agreement with recommended sentence examined. State v. O’Connell, 18 K.A.2d 895, 897, 898, 861 P.2d 138 (1993).

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

108. Cited; whether house arrest constitutes imprisonment under 21-3405b(b)(2) examined. State v. Scherzer, 254 K. 926, 935, 869 P.2d 729 (1994).

109. Whether court failed to exercise discretion in denying defendant’s motion to modify sentence examined. State v. Bruce, 255 K. 388, 398, 874 P.2d 1165 (1994).

110. Whether granting parole to misdemeanant is a public hearing under 74-7335(b) requiring notice to the victim examined. State v. Holt, 255 K. 416, 421, 874 P.2d 1183 (1994).

111. Whether sentencing court may award restitution for charges in original complaint dismissed pursuant to plea agreement examined. State v. Ball, 255 K. 694, 696, 699, 877 P.2d 955 (1994).

112. Time frame in which appeal of denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea must be taken examined. State v. McDaniel, 255 K. 756, 761, 877 P.2d 961 (1994).

113. Whether court failed to state with particularity reasons for denying sentence modification where recommendation supports modification examined. State v. Davis, 256 K. 1, 28, 883 P.2d 735 (1994).

114. Whether correctional report contained unequivocal recommendation to modify sentence necessary to trigger mandatory modification provision examined. State v. Dotson, 256 K. 406, 417, 886 P.2d 356 (1994).

115. Whether correctional report contained unequivocal recommendation for modification of defendant’s sentence examined. State v. Sims, 256 K. 533, 539, 542, 887 P.2d 72 (1994).

116. Whether section’s mandatory modification provisions apply to crimes committed with a firearm examined. State v. Medina, 256 K. 695, 698, 887 P.2d 105 (1994).

117. Whether court abused discretion in denying defendant’s motion to modify without correctional evaluation recommendations examined. State v. Goseland, 256 K. 729, 742, 887 P.2d 1109 (1994).

118. Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider new issues raised in untimely amended notice of appeal; judge sufficiently stated reasons for departing from correctional facility recommendations. State v. Grant, 19 K.A.2d 686, 689, 699, 875 P.2d 986 (1994).

119. When district court has jurisdiction to hear defendant’s second motion to modify sentence examined. State v. Hooks, 256 K. 869, 870, 888 P.2d 853 (1995).

120. Whether trial court has jurisdiction to hear successive motions requesting sentence modification examined. State v. Van Winkle, 256 K. 890, 892, 889 P.2d 749 (1995).

121. Whether filing notice of appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction to hear motion to modify sentence examined. State v. Gibbons, 256 K. 951, 966, 889 P.2d 772 (1995).

122. Once appeal from motion to modify sentence is decided, courts have no jurisdiction to hear second motion to modify. State v. Waterbury, 258 K. 614, 615, 907 P.2d 858 (1995).

123. Notice of appeal was sufficient to include trial court’s revocation of probation for appellate jurisdiction purposes. State v. Walker, 260 K. 803, 806, 926 P.2d 218 (1996).

124. Sentencing court’s jurisdiction to modify or depart from sentence after imposition of lawful KSGA (21-4701 et seq.) discussed. State v. Miller, 260 K. 892, 895, 926 P.2d 652 (1996).

125. Authority of court to order restitution on crimes defendant did not plead to not limited by 21-4610. State v. Turner, 22 K.A.2d 564, 566, 919 P.2d 370 (1996).

126. Imposition of imprisonment sentence where defendant’s offense within nonprison grid but committed while defendant incarcerated not appealable. State v. Burrows, 23 K.A.2d 342, 343, 929 P.2d 1391 (1997).

127. Nunc pro tunc order changing consecutive sentence to concurrent illegal where court otherwise lacked jurisdiction notwithstanding parties agreement. State v. Vanwey, 262 K. 524, 941 P.2d 365 (1997).

128. Defendant convicted of criminal nonsupport may be ordered to pay child support owed outside period alleged in complaint as probation condition. State v. Loffer, 24 K.A.2d 495, 496, 947 P.2d 458 (1997).

129. Defendant may not be confined in county jail for over 30 days but such confinement need not be on consecutive days. State v. Petz, 27 K.A.2d 805, 7 P.3d 1277 (2000).

130. Criminal act governed by 1997 Supp; defendant’s imprisonment not a departure; subsequent amendment was substantive and cannot be applied retroactively; trial court had no ability to modify sentence. State v. Martin, 270 K. 603, 17 P.3d 344 (2001).

131. Punishment for criminal act is substantive and may not be applied retroactively. State v. Agosto, 271 K. 889, 27 P.3d 423 (2001).

132. Defendant may be sentenced to imprisonment after committing three presumptive felony offenses since he was on parole from state of California. State v. Allen, 28 K.A.2d 784, 20 P.3d 747 (2001).

133. Section can not be applied retroactively; trial court cannot determine it to be unconstitutional. State v. Moody, 272 K. 1199, 38 P.3d 659 (2002).

134. Court may impose conditions to sentence involving community corrections or probation but may not in imposing sentence of incarceration. State v. Post, 279 K. 664, 112 P.3d 116 (2005).

135. Court must clearly indicate on record it considered placement of defendant at Labette. State v. Williams, 34 K.A.2d 837, 125 P.3d 578 (2006).

136. Section K.S.A. 22-4513 requires court to tax costs of BIDS reimbursement then balance defendant’s ability to repay. State v. Stevens, 285 K. 307, 327, 172 P.3d 570 (2007).

137. Section requires restitution unless court finds a plan of restitution unworkable. State v. Cole, 37 K.A.2d 633, 638, 155 P.3d 739 (2007).

138. Section discussed in holding that a restitution hearing before sentencing is directory, not mandatory. State v. Burton, 37 K.A.2d 924, 927, 163 P.3d 325 (2007).

139. Statute makes restitution the rule, finding restitution unworkable is the exception, inability to pay is defendant’s burden. State v. McCall, 38 K.A.2d 236, 243, 163 P.3d 378 (2007).

140. Cited in opinion holding that juveniles have a constitutional right to jury trials. In re L.M., 286 K. 460, 467, 186 P.3d 164 (2008).

141. Cited; trial court had jurisdiction to correct illegal sentence that favored defendant. State v. McCarley, 287 K. 167, 174, 195 P.3d 230 (2008).

142. Cited; K.S.A. 21-4603d (f)(1) does not authorize consecutive sentences for an adult conviction and a juvenile adjudication under juvenile justice code. State v. Sims, 40 K.A.2d 119 to 122, 190 P.3d 271 (2008).

143. Juvenile adjudications are not to be considered in determination of persistent sex offender status under K.S.A. 21-4704(j). State v. Boyer, 289 K. 108, 209 P.3d 705 (2009).