CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Sentencing and conditions of probation pursuant to conviction hereunder considered. State v. Windom, 23 Kan. App. 2d 429, 932 P.2d 1919 (1997).

2. Severity level of drug possession charge under K.S.A. 65-4162 should have been enhanced for conviction under prior statute (K.S.A. 65-4127b). State v. Crank, 262 Kan. 449, 452, 989 P.2d 890 (1997).

3. Motion to suppress evidence upheld where consent by defendant to be searched was voluntary. State v. Hardyway, 264 Kan. 451, 958 P.2d 618 (1998).

4. Enhancement of sentence must be for prior violation of this section (possession of cocaine); prior conviction under K.S.A. 65-4161 (unlawful sale or distribution of drugs) may not be used. State v. Daniels, 28 Kan. App. 2d 364, 17 P.3d 373 (2000).

5. No violation of Apprendi where defendant's prior convictions were used to increase severity level of current crime and thus the sentence. State v. Graham, 273 Kan. 844, 46 P.3d 1177 (2002).

6. Purchase of two packages of cold pills containing pseudoephedrine insufficient to infer criminal intent. State v. Schneider, 32 Kan. App. 2d 258, 80 P.3d 1184 (2003).

7. Court affirms use of results from pumping of defendant's stomach to convict for possession of cocaine. State v. Green, 32 Kan. App. 2d 789, 89 P.3d 940 (2004).

8. State required to set forth severity level of offense when charging under habitual criminal statute but is not required to provide evidence of prior convictions until sentencing phase of case. Thompson v. State, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1259, 96 P.3d 1115 (2004).

9. Amendment of section is not effective retrospectively (2003 SB 123). State v. de la Cerda, 279 Kan. 408, 109 P.3d 1248 (2005).

10. No identity of elements with K.S.A. 65-4159, so no double jeopardy violation. State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 500, 133 P.3d 48 (2006).

11. Conviction hereunder; law regarding police-citizen encounters discussed and applied to fourth amendment search and seizure issues. State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007).

12. Criminal convictions hereunder; court discusses grounds to uphold warrantless searches. State v. Geraghty, 38 Kan. App. 2d 114, 117, 163 P.3d 350 (2007).

13. Cited; no jail time credit for time in inpatient treatment required by mandatory drug abuse treatment program. State v. Preston, 287 Kan. 181, 182, 195 P.3d 240 (2008).

14. Cited; court discusses double jeopardy analysis to drug crimes, unitary conduct and unit of prosecution test. State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238, 241, 247, 248, 200 P.3d 22 (2008).

15. Conviction hereunder and sentencing to certified drug abuse treatment program; upon finding of failure to participate, court properly required serving prison sentence. State v. Bee, 39 Kan. App. 2d 139, 140, 143, 179 P.3d 466 (2008).

16. Conviction under K.S.A. 65-4160; request to file direct appeal of probation revocation out of time; appeal moot. State v. Johnson, 39 Kan. App. 2d 438, 439, 180 P.3d 1084 (2008).

17. Conviction hereunder reversed; unlawful detention resulting in suppression of evidence; new trial. State v. Gross, 39 Kan. App. 2d 788, 789, 793, 184 P.3d 978 (2008).

18. Cited; court not required to impose nonprison sentence even when such sentence is presumed, when. State v. Andelt, 40 Kan. App. 2d 796, 195 P.3d 1220 (2008).

19. Cited; conviction under K.S.A. 65-4127a should not have been counted as a prior conviction under K.S.A. 65-4161(c). State v. Kirk, 40 Kan. App. 2d 817, 821, 822, 196 P.3d 407 (2008).

20. Cited; conviction hereunder reversed; impoundment of vehicle by law enforcement held unreasonable. State v. Branstetter, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1167, 1169, 199 P.3d 1272 (2009).

21. Defendant who fails to participate in ordered drug abuse treatment program is subject to serve underlying prison sentence. State v. Bee, 288 Kan. 733, 207 P.3d 244 (2009).

22. BIDS application fee procedures protect a defendant's constitutional right to counsel. State v. Casady, 289 Kan. 150, 210 P.3d 113 (2009).

23. Drug treatment programs mandatory for individuals who qualify under K.S.A. 21-4729. State v. Andelt, 289 Kan. 763, 217 P.3d 976 (2009).

24. Probable cause for search found in case involving drug charges, based upon smell and plain view of paraphernalia. State v. Ulrey, 41 Kan. App. 2d 1052, 208 P.3d 317 (2009).

25. Possession of the narcotic in Lortab is a felony under K.S.A. 65-4160. State v. Surowski, 42 Kan. App. 2d 304, 212 P.3d 229 (2009).

26. 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).

27. Conviction hereunder reversed; unreasonable search and seizure a constitutional violation. State v. Dean, 42 Kan. App. 2d 558, 214 P.3d 1190 (2009).

28. Defendant charged hereunder; district magistrate judges authorized to conduct felony arraignments, when. State v. Valladarez, 288 Kan. 671, 206 P.3d 879 (2009).

29. Statute makes possession of hydrocodone a severity level 4 felony, regardless of whether the drug would be classified as a schedule II or III controlled substance. State v. Collins, 294 Kan. 780, 280 P.3d 763 (2012).