22-3430. Commitment to certain institutions as a result of a K.S.A. 22-3429 examination, when; standards; costs; appeal by defendant; victim notification. (a) If the report of the examination authorized by K.S.A. 22-3429, and amendments thereto, shows that the defendant is in need of psychiatric care and treatment, that such treatment may materially aid in the defendant's rehabilitation and that the defendant and society are not likely to be endangered by permitting the defendant to receive such psychiatric care and treatment, in lieu of confinement or imprisonment, the trial judge shall have power to commit such defendant to: (1) The state security hospital or any county institution provided for the reception, care, treatment and maintenance of mentally ill persons, if the defendant is convicted of a felony; or (2) any state or county institution provided for the reception, care, treatment and maintenance of mentally ill persons, if the defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor. The court may direct that the defendant be detained in such hospital or institution until further order of the court or until the defendant is discharged under K.S.A. 22-3431, and amendments thereto. The county or district attorney shall notify any victims of the outcome of the hearing. No period of detention under this section shall exceed the maximum term provided by law for the crime of which the defendant has been convicted. The cost of care and treatment provided by a state institution shall be assessed in accordance with K.S.A. 59-2006, and amendments thereto.
(b) No defendant committed to the state security hospital pursuant to this section upon conviction of a felony shall be transferred or released from such hospital except on recommendation of the staff of such hospital.
(c) The defendant may appeal from any order of commitment made pursuant to this section in the same manner and with like effect as if sentence to a jail, or to the custody of the secretary of corrections had been imposed.
History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3430; L. 1992, ch. 309, § 5; L. 1993, ch. 247, § 4; L. 2010, ch. 61, § 6; L. 2014, ch. 5, § 5; July 1.
Source or Prior Law:
62-1536, 62-1540.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"The End of Insanity," Raymond L. Spring, 19 W.L.J. 23, 36 (1979).
"Farewell to Insanity—A Return to Mens Rea," Raymond L. Spring, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 4, 38 (1997).
Criminal Procedure Edition, 47 K.L.R. 937 (1999).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Mentioned; evaluation of defendant from reception and diagnostic center not newly discovered evidence entitling defendant to new trial. State v. Lora, 213 Kan. 184, 194, 515 P.2d 1086.
2. Commitment hereunder; conviction of aggravated battery upheld. State v. Warbritton, 215 Kan. 534, 527 P.2d 1050.
3. Referred to in determining appeal from aggravated robbery conviction not filed within statutory time. State v. Smith, 223 Kan. 47, 573 P.2d 985.
4. Court retains jurisdiction over defendant committed hereunder and may direct return of defendant for other disposition if not amenable to treatment. State v. Smith, 3 Kan. App. 2d 179, 180, 181, 591 P.2d 1098.
5. Commitment hereunder mentioned; stress recognized as one basis of the right to speedy trial protection. State v. Taylor, 3 Kan. App. 2d 316, 323, 594 P.2d 262.
6. Conditional grant of authority; neither commitment nor findings required and refusal to commit not reviewable. State v. Adkins, 236 Kan. 259, 261, 689 P.2d 880 (1984).
7. Cited; jail time credit (K.S.A. 21-4614) while in community corrections facility on probation, authority to commit discussed. State v. Fowler, 238 Kan. 326, 338, 710 P.2d 1268 (1985).
8. Cited; court of appeals' jurisdiction of habeas corpus issue also on direct appeal to Supreme Court examined. In re Habeas Corpus Application of Maas, 11 Kan. App. 2d 597, 598, 730 P.2d 368 (1986).
9. Sentencing and resentencing after remand following commitment for treatment; vindictiveness, discretion examined. State v. Heywood, 245 Kan. 615, 616, 783 P.2d 890 (1989).
10. Delays caused by defendant's filing motion for competency hearing as chargeable to defendant determined. State v. Prewett, 246 Kan. 39, 40, 785 P.2d 956 (1990).
11. No abuse of discretion by trial court in sentencing defendant rather than continuing commitment to state hospital. State v. Harkness, 252 Kan. 510, 518, 847 P.2d 1191 (1993).
12. Trial court permitted to consider maximum penalties applicable for all convictions, even multiple convictions of same criminal statute. State v. Finley, 18 Kan. App. 2d 419, 422, 854 P.2d 315 (1993).
13. Whether decision to sentence in lieu of committing defendant is reviewable on appeal examined. State v. Baker, 255 Kan. 680, 692, 877 P.2d 946 (1994).
14. Trial court refusal to commit defendant in lieu of imprisonment not appealable; interpretation of statute appealable. State v. Lawson, 25 Kan. App. 2d 138, 139, 144, 959 P.2d 923 (1998).
15. For person committed for evaluation hereunder, sentencing provisions of K.S.A. 22-3431 apply and upward and downward departure provisions of K.S.A. 21-4716 do not apply. State v. Hildebrandt, 270 Kan. 1, 12 P.3d 1171 (2000).
16. Conviction under K.S.A. 21-3413 upheld; jury rejects mental disease or defect defense. State v. Hunter, 41 Kan. App. 2d 507, 203 P.3d 23 (2009).
|
|