Cross References to Related Sections:

Sentencing for certain crimes involving use of firearms, see 21-4618.

Authorized terms, see 21-4501, 21-4504.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Sentencing felons under the criminal code, Raymond W. Baker, 10 W.L.J. 269, 274 (1971).

"Creative Punishment: A Study of Effective Sentencing Alternatives," David F. Fisher, 14 W.L.J. 57, 71 (1975).

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

Cited in note concerning mandatory minimum terms for crimes involving firearms, 26 K.L.R. 277, 282 (1978).

"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 (1995).

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

CASE ANNOTATIONS

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

2. Judgment affirmed but sentence vacated; abuse of discretion; remanded for resentencing. State v. Buckner, 223 Kan. 138, 151, 574 P.2d 918.

3. Abuse of judicial discretion in sentencing defendant; remanded for resentencing. State v. Coe, 223 Kan. 153, 168, 170, 574 P.2d 929.

4. 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.

5. Sentence imposed at deferred sentencing not abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, 3 Kan. App. 2d 179, 182, 591 P.2d 1098.

6. Where court considered factors set out herein, not an abuse of discretion to impose maximum sentence. State v. Williams, 226 Kan. 688, 697, 602 P.2d 1332.

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

8. Sentences imposed, while lengthy, within statutory limits and considering heinous nature and severity of the crimes, no abuse of discretion. State v. Case, 228 Kan. 733, 739, 620 P.2d 821.

9. Sentence upheld where within statutory limits and factors carefully considered. State v. Marks, 231 Kan. 645, 655, 656, 647 P.2d 1292 (1982).

10. 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).

11. Sentence imposed under K.S.A. 21-4501 affirmed; no abuse of discretion; reasons set forth for imposing sentence sufficient. State v. Walters, 8 Kan. App. 2d 237, 244, 655 P.2d 947 (1983).

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. Trial judge should make detailed record of facts and factors considered in imposing sentence. State v. Crispin, 234 Kan. 104, 113, 671 P.2d 502 (1983).

14. Life sentence controlled time served in prison; sentence on aggravated battery has no bearing on defendant's parole eligibility. State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355, 366, 681 P.2d 612 (1984).

15. Where no showing court did not consider criteria hereunder, no abuse where sentences within statutory limits. State v. Wood, 235 Kan. 915, 926, 686 P.2d 128 (1984).

16. Criteria applicable to determining whether sentences to run concurrently or consecutively under K.S.A. 21-4608. State v. Adkins, 236 Kan. 259, 264, 689 P.2d 880 (1984).

17. 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).

18. Error in relying only on nature of crime and not considering K.S.A. 21-4601 in overcoming presumption of probation (K.S.A. 21-4606a). State v. Linsin, 10 Kan. App. 2d 681, 684, 709 P.2d 988 (1985).

19. 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).

20. No abuse of discretion where, absent findings on criteria, no claim of partiality, prejudice, oppression or corrupt motive shown. State v. Roberts-Reid, 238 Kan. 788, 714, P.2d 971 (1986).

21. No abuse of discretion where sentences imposed within statutory limits and based on sentencing criteria. State v. Strauch, 239 Kan. 203, 219, 718 P.2d 613 (1986).

22. Cited; misunderstanding of good time credit and minimum time to serve not error where sentence within prescribed law. State v. Slansky, 239 Kan. 450, 454, 720 P.2d 1054 (1986).

23. Cited and discussed; direct appeal of sentence; trial judge should state factors considered important in imposing sentence; no abuse of discretion under facts. State v. Harrold, 239 Kan. 645, 646, 652, 722 P.2d 563 (1986).

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

25. Statute met where court specifically stated it had reviewed and considered factors listed. State v. Jennings, 240 Kan. 377, 381, 729 P.2d 454 (1986).

26. 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).

27. Cited; factors considered where presentence and KRDC reports available and minimum sentence imposed examined. State v. Bennett, 240 Kan. 575, 576, 731 P.2d 284 (1987).

28. The 5 th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination extends at least through sentencing; direct contempt adjudication reversed. State v. Rucas, 12 Kan. App. 2d 68, 73, 734 P.2d 673 (1987).

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

30. Cited; direct appeal of probation denial and sentencing following guilty or nolo contendere plea dismissed. State v. Dantzler, 12 Kan. App. 2d 181, 737 P.2d 69 (1987).

31. 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).

32. 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).

33. Cited; abuse of discretion or partiality, prejudice or corrupt motive in sentencing examined. State v. Adams, 242 Kan. 20, 28, 744 P.2d 833 (1987).

34. Cited; guidance in construing sentencing statutes (K.S.A. 21-4601), criteria to consider in sentencing examined. State v. McGlothlin, 242 Kan. 437, 438, 747 P.2d 1335 (1988).

35. Substantial compliance met when court incorporates presentence report into record addressing seven factors in (2). State v. Webb, 242 Kan. 519, 531, 748 P.2d 875 (1988).

36. Cited; sentencing of one defendant for aiding and abetting convictions being same as sentencing of principal defendant examined. State v. Dunn, 243 Kan. 414, 434, 758 P.2d 718 (1988).

37. 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).

38. Sufficiency of evidence of felony conviction in another state to support sentence enhancement (K.S.A. 21-4504) examined. State v. Crichton, 13 Kan. App. 2d 213, 218, 766 P.2d 832 (1989).

39. Controlling sentence in light of sentencing criteria herein examined. State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493, 503, 769 P.2d 666 (1989).

40. 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).

41. Seven factors for consideration in sentencing not detailed where court exceeded minimum sentence; no abuse of discretion shown. State v. Meyers, 245 Kan. 471, 479, 781 P.2d 700 (1989).

42. Sentencing and resentencing after remand; vindictiveness, discretion examined. State v. Heywood, 245 Kan. 615, 617, 783 P.2d 890 (1989).

43. 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).

44. Trial court's comments in imposing sentence as not constituting abuse of discretion examined. State v. Pioletti, 246 Kan. 49, 68, 785 P.2d 963 (1990).

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

46. Plea agreement on concurrent and maximum sentences and comments on factors herein and defendant's conduct examined. State v. Crawford, 246 Kan. 231, 235, 787 P.2d 1180 (1990).

47. 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).

48. 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).

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

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

51. Imposition of sentence contrary to plea agreement, when withdrawal of guilty plea permitted examined. State v. Hill, 247 Kan. 377, 379, 799 P.2d 997 (1990).

52. 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).

53. Trial court not limited to consideration of events occurring only before crime for which defendant is being sentenced. State v. Hannah, 248 Kan. 141, 145, 804 P.2d 990 (1991).

54. Circumstances surrounding sentencing and modification thereof examined; court's consideration of factors herein noted. State v. Waterberry, 248 Kan. 169, 174, 804 P.2d 1000 (1991).

55. 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).

56. Considered in holding district courts failure to follow policies in K.S.A. 21-4601, constituted abuse of discretion. State v. Fisher, 249 Kan. 649, 650, 652, 822 P.2d 602 (1991).

57. Statutory criteria applied in imposing sentence; court did not abuse discretion. State v. Brown, 249 Kan. 698, 708, 823 P.2d 190 (1991).

58. Jurisdiction to hear appeal challenging minimum sentence not involving presumptive probation following guilty or nolo contendere plea examined. State v. Bruner, 15 Kan. App. 2d 369, 808 P.2d 440 (1991).

59. Terms of incarceration in excess of minimum, reference to sentencing factors herein examined. State v. Grimsley, 15 Kan. App. 2d 441, 445, 808 P.2d 1387 (1991).

60. 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).

61. Overcoming presumption of probation contained in K.S.A. 21-4606a by evaluating all circumstances and factors in K.S.A. 21-4601 and herein examined. State v. Ribadeneira, 15 Kan. App. 2d 734, 748, 817 P.2d 1105 (1991).

62. Record of criminal activity examined where court imposed consecutive maximum sentences within statutory limits. State v. Barraza-Flores, 16 Kan. App. 2d 15, 23, 819 P.2d 128 (1991).

63. Appeal from imposition of minimum sentence after plea of guilty absent allegations of partiality, prejudice or corrupt motive denied. State v. Ramsey, 16 Kan. App. 2d 132, 133, 135, 819 P.2d 667 (1991).

64. Court must consider criteria of this section in determining whether presumption of K.S.A. 21-4606b is overcome. State v. Turner, 16 Kan. App. 2d 221, 226, 227, 820 P.2d 1251 (1991).

65. No abuse of discretion where sentences imposed within statutory guidelines. State v. McDonald, 250 Kan. 73, 81, 82, 824 P.2d 941 (1992).

66. 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).

67. Court's sentencing statement and term imposed greater than minimum and less than maximum examined. State v. DeHerrera, 251 Kan. 143, 151, 834 P.2d 918 (1992).

68. 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).

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

70. Failure to make record of factors considered not an abuse of discretion, conviction and sentence affirmed. State v. Sidel, 16 Kan. App. 2d 686, 694, 695, 827 P.2d 1215 (1992).

71. 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, 489, 840 P.2d 529 (1992).

72. Comments of judge not a showing of improper prejudice; sentence upheld. State v. Tran, 252 Kan. 494, 508, 509, 847 P.2d 680 (1993).

73. No abuse of discretion found in imposing sentences to run consecutively. State v. Turner, 252 Kan. 666, 668, 847 P.2d 1286 (1993).

74. Abuse of discretion found when sentencing judge failed to consider circumstances of defendant and criteria of statute. State v. Richard, 252 Kan. 872, 879, 880, 881, 882, 850 P.2d 844 (1993).

75. 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).

76. Consecutive maximum sentences following nolo contendere pleas not abuse of trial court's discretion under facts stated. State v. Gibbens, 253 Kan. 384, 386, 855 P.2d 937 (1993).

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

78. 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).

79. 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).

80. 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).

81. 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).

82. Whether the factors in this statute are considered indicative of factors to be considered under K.S.A. 21-4601 examined. State v. Rodriguez, 254 Kan. 768, 777, 869 P.2d 631 (1994).

83. 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).

84. 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).

85. 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).

86. Whether judge erred by enhancing sentence based on belief defendant's trial testimony was false examined. State v. Whitaker, 255 Kan. 118, 136, 872 P.2d 278 (1994).

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

88. 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).

89. 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).

90. 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).

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

92. Whether defense's failure to raise allocution issue in motion to modify precluded challenge on appeal examined. State v. Castoreno, 255 Kan. 401, 414, 874 P.2d 1173 (1994).

93. Whether court erred by sentencing defendant to consecutive hard 40 sentences for two murder convictions examined. State v. Stafford, 255 Kan. 807, 817, 820, 878 P.2d 820 (1994).

94. 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, 27, 883 P.2d 735 (1994).

95. 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).

96. 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).

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

98. 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).

99. 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).

100. 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).

101. 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, 774, 875 P.2d 1007 (1994).

102. Whether trial court erred in failing to consider presumption of community corrections in sentencing defendant examined. State v. Henry, 19 Kan. App. 2d 805, 806, 876 P.2d 620 (1994).

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

104. Whether life imprisonment is an indeterminate sentence examined. State v. Van Winkle, 256 Kan. 890, 899, 889 P.2d 749 (1995).

105. 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).

106. Whether court erred by considering defendant's prior criminal activity which did not result in conviction in sentencing examined. State v. O'Neal, 256 Kan. 909, 911, 889 P.2d 128 (1995).

107. Whether judge abused discretion by not considering sentencing factors adequately examined. State v. Lewis, 256 Kan. 929, 936, 889 P.2d 766 (1995).

108. 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).

109. 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).

110. Whether court abused discretion by failing to consider defendant's individual characteristics at sentencing examined. State v. Solomon, 257 Kan. 212, 225, 891 P.2d 407 (1995).

111. Whether court failed to consider mitigating factors in sentencing defendant examined. State v. Hunt, 257 Kan. 388, 403, 894 P.2d 178 (1995).

112. Whether court abused discretion by not considering defendant's individual circumstances at sentencing examined. State v. Ricks, 257 Kan. 435, 442, 894 P.2d 191 (1995).

113. Whether judge's comments at sentencing indicate a bias against pedophiles examined. State v. Fierro, 257 Kan. 639, 652, 895 P.2d 186 (1995).

114. Whether judge abused discretion by improperly denying defendant probation examined. State v. Gambrel, 20 Kan. App. 2d 944, 948, 894 P.2d 235 (1995).

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

116. 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).

117. No abuse of discretion in trial court's failure to specifically enumerate sentencing factors. State v. Zuck, 21 Kan. App. 2d 597, 609, 904 P.2d 1005 (1995).

118. Trial court did not abuse discretion by enhancing sentence partially based on defendant's untruthful trial testimony. State v. Whitaker, 260 Kan. 85, 86, 917 P.2d 859 (1996).

119. Error to bifurcate multiple prior convictions under K.S.A. 21-4504 to enhance both defendant's convictions of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. State v. Rinck, 260 Kan. 634, 637, 644, 646, 923 P.2d 67 (1996).

120. Sentencing judge adequately addressed mitigating factors in sentencing minor tried as adult to maximum sentence. State v. Vargas, 260 Kan. 791, 801, 926 P.2d 223 (1996).

121. Sentencing court examined each factor hereunder; no manifest injustice found on review of sentence under K.S.A. 21-4618. State v. Torrance, 22 Kan. App. 2d 721, 730, 922 P.2d 1109 (1996).

122. Trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting impact statement of murder victim's sister-in-law. State v. Parks, 265 Kan. 644, 647, 648, 962 P.2d 486 (1998).

123. Case remanded for failure to consider presumptive sentence; issue not waived by failure to file sentence modification motion. State v. Stuber, 25 Kan. App. 2d 254, 266, 962 P.2d 1104 (1998).

124. No abuse of trial court's discretion in denying defendant's motion to modify his sentence. State v. Lee, 266 Kan. 1044, 1045, 975 P.2d 1208 (1999).

125. Court's failure to make findings pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4606 does not make sentence illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504. State v. Rojas, 280 Kan. 931, 127 P.3d 247 (2006).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov