Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Putting an End to the Imposition of Death by Misperception and Misunderstanding: Simmons v. South Carolina," Janie Clark, 43 K.L.R. 1147, 1165, 1166 (1995).

"Federal Constitutional Requirements Governing Trial, Sentencing and Direct Review in Capital Cases," Stephen McAllister, 64 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 20, 22, 29 (1995).

Survey of Recent Cases, 46 K.L.R. 925, 926 (1998).

"Apprendi v. New Jersey: Protecting the Constitutional Rights of Criminals in Sentencing," Stephanie B. Stewart, 49 K.L.R. 1193 (2001).

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

"Lurching Toward the Light: Alternative Means and Multiple Acts Law in Kansas," Carol A. Beier, 44 W.L.J. 275 (2005).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Police reports of prior crimes properly admitted; failure to designate aggravating circumstances in writing correctible by nunc pro tunc order. State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 60, 76, 77, 78, 936 P.2d 727 (1997).

2. Trial court did not abuse discretion in considering relevant evidence regarding sentencing. State v. Barnes, 263 Kan. 249, 267, 948 P.2d 627 (1997).

3. Imposition of hard 40 sentence upheld where aggravating circumstances outweighed defendant's mitigating circumstances. State v. Dias, 263 Kan. 331, 338, 949 P.2d 1093 (1997).

4. Standard of proof for aggravating circumstance under subsection (c) is preponderance of the evidence; subsection (c) held constitutional. State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 710, 725, 953 P.2d 1004 (1998).

5. Hard 40 sentence applies to defendant convicted of aiding and abetting a first-degree premeditated murder. State v. Wakefield, 267 Kan. 116, 141, 977 P.2d 941 (1999).

6. Aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating factors and justify imposition of hard 40 sentence. State v. Murillo, 269 Kan. 281, 7 P.3d 264 (2000).

7. Aggravating factor of multiple murders may be used in imposing hard 40 sentences for two offenses and imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Jamison, 269 Kan. 564, 7 P.3d 1204 (2000).

8. Sufficient evidence to support hard 40 sentence. State v. Saiz, 269 Kan. 657, 7 P.3d 1214 (2000).

9. Hard 40 year sentence affirmed for first degree murder; victim was in extreme fear, had conscious physical pain as well as mental anguish. State v. Lessley, 271 Kan. 780, 26 P.3d 620 (2001).

10. Premeditated murder conviction affirmed; imposition of hard 40 sentence not violation of federal or state constitutions. State v. Sanders, 272 Kan. 445, 33 P.3d 596 (2001).

11. Aggravating factors supporting a hard 50 sentence may be included in record by judge's nunc pro tunc order. State v. Livingston, 272 Kan. 853, 35 P.3d 918 (2001).

12. Hard 40 sentence affirmed for conviction of first-degree premeditated murder. State v. Roberson, 272 Kan. 1143, 38 P.3d 715 (2002).

13. Hard 50 statute is constitutional. State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 82 P.3d 470 (2004).

14. Hard 50 life sentence affirmed for alcoholic who killed his grandmother. State v. Horn, 278 Kan. 24, 91 P.3d 517 (2004).

15. Section does not increase maximum punishment; no Apprendi violation. State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520, 546, 102 P.3d 445 (2004).

16. Hard 50 sentence not unconstitutional under Apprendi. State v. Hurt, 278 Kan. 676, 101 P.3d 1249 (2004).

17. Court's weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances within sound discretion. State v. Drennan, 278 Kan. 704, 101 P.3d 1218 (2004).

18. Imposition of hard 50 sentence justified; not unconstitutional under Apprendi. State v. Robertson, 279 Kan. 291, 109 P.3d 1174 (2005).

19. Imposition of two concurrent hard 50 sentences affirmed. State v. James, 279 Kan. 354, 109 P.3d 1171 (2005).

20. Hard 50 sentence affirmed; not unconstitutional under Apprendi. State v. Washington, 280 Kan. 565, 123 P.3d 1265 (2005).

21. Hard 50 sentence affirmed; no constitutional violation under Apprendi. State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 124 P.3d 493 (2005).

22. Mentioned, authorizes hard 50 sentences. State v. Baker, 281 Kan. 997, 1018, 135 P.3d 1098 (2006).

23. Court's finding that state's aggravating factor outweighed defendant's mitigating factors not an abuse of discretion. State v. Lawrence, 281 Kan. 1081, 1096, 135 P.3d 1211 (2006).

24. Kansas hard 50 sentencing constitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey. State v. Kirtdoll, 281 Kan. 1138, 1151, 136 P.3d 417 (2006).

25. Aggravating circumstances found in imposing hard 50-year sentence, challenged by defendant. State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 159 P.3d 161 (2007).

26. Hard 40 sentence upheld against constitutional challenge. State v. Hernandez, 284 Kan. 74, 105, 159 P.3d 950 (2007).

27. Section amended to provide that defendant convicted of capital murder who does not receive death penalty shall be sentenced to life. State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 67, 183 P.3d 801 (2008).

28. Cited; weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances discussed and applied. State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 952, 190 P.3d 937 (2008).

29. Sentencing under K.S.A. 21-4636 upheld; no correction of an illegal sentence called for under case facts. State v. Peirano, 289 Kan. 805, 217 P.3d 23 (2009).

30. Hard 50 sentence upheld as proper after weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. State v. Appleby 289 Kan. 1017, 221 P.3d 525 (2009).

31. State not required to allege the aggravating factors used as a basis to impose a hard 50 life sentence in the complaint. State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 221 P.3d 1105 (2009).

32. Standard of proof for aggravating circumstances is a preponderance of evidence. State v. Nelson, 291 Kan. 475, 243 P.3d 343 (2010).

33. Hard 50 sentence is not unconstitutional. State v Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 277 P.3d 1111 (2012).

34. One undisputed aggravating circumstance provides an adequate basis for the hard 50 sentence. State v. Astorga, 295 Kan. 339, 284 P.3d 279 (2012).

35. Imposition of a hard 50 sentence violates the 6 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State v. Soto, 299 Kan. 102, 322 P.3d 334 (2014).

36. Defendant's hard 50 sentence for first-degree murder violates his 6 th Amendment rights. State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 322 P.3d 367 (2014).

37. When determining whether to impose a hard 50 life sentence, a district court may consider a broad spectrum of evidence. State v. Lopez, 299 Kan. 324, 323 P.3d 1260 (2014).

38. Kansas' former statutory procedure for imposing a hard 50 sentence violates the 6 th Amendment to the U.S. constitution because it permitted a judge, rather than a jury, to find the aggravating factors necessary to impose an increased mandatory minimum sentence. State v. DeAnda, 299 Kan. 594, 324 P.3d 1115 (2014); State v. Lloyd, 299 Kan. 620, 325 P.3d 1122 (2014); State v. Molina, 299 Kan. 651, 325 P.3d 1142 (2014); State v. Hayes, 299 Kan. 861, 868, 327 P.3d 314 (2014); State v. Holt, 300 Kan. 985, 336 P.3d 312 (2014); State v. Coones, 301 Kan. 64, 65-66, 339 P.3d 375 (2014); State v. Killings, 301 Kan. 214, 244, 340 P.3d 1186 (2015); State v. Salary, 301 Kan. 586, 608, 343 P.3d 1165 (2015).

39. Kansas' sentencing scheme for imposing a hard 50 life sentence violates the 6 th Amendment to the U.S. constitution because it denied defendant's right to have a jury decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, all facts necessary to increase the penalty for first-degree murder. State v. Warren, 302 Kan. 601, 621, 356 P.3d 396 (2015); State v. Moore, 302 Kan. 685, 708, 357 P.3d 275 (2015).

40. Hard 50 life sentence of a minor not unconstitutional when sentencing court had discretion to impose a lesser sentence. Williams v. State, 314 Kan. 466, 473, 500 P.3d 1182 (2021).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov