5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Holmangreen2 sentences2016We bolstered our conclusion with the facts that the charging document did include Reyna's year of birth in its caption and did state at the bottom of the page that the charges were for off-grid crimes. 290 Kan. at 678; see also State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 151 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012) (charging document omitted defendants age; any deficiency did not invalidate defendant's conviction or sentence); State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242, 252 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012) (listing cases rejecting defendant's argument of deficient charging document based on omission of defendant's age); State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 2016We bolstered our conclusion with the facts that the charging document did include Reyna's year of birth in its caption and did state at the bottom of the page that the charges were for off-grid crimes. 290 Kan. at 678; see also State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 151 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012) (charging document omitted defendants age; any deficiency did not invalidate defendant's conviction or sentence); State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242, 252 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012) (listing cases rejecting defendant's argument of deficient charging document based on omission of defendant's age); State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ballardgreen2 sentences2011In Sellers’ view, his situation also is distinct from that of the Jessica’s Law defendant in State v. Ballard, 289 Kan. 1000 , 218 P.3d 432 (2009), in which we affirmed a district judge’s correction of an illegal 36-month postrelease term to a lifetime term, even though 2 weeks had passed between the original imposition and the correction. 2011In Sellers’ view, his situation also is distinct from that of the Jessica’s Law defendant in State v. Ballard, 289 Kan. 1000 , 218 P.3d 432 (2009), in which we affirmed a district judge’s correction of an illegal 36-month postrelease term to a lifetime term, even though 2 weeks had passed between the original imposition and the correction. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Reynagreen2 sentences2011See State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010); State v. Colston, 290 Kan. 952 , 235 P.3d 1234 (2010). 2011See State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010); State v. Colston, 290 Kan. 952 , 235 P.3d 1234 (2010). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Colston
green
2 sentences2016We bolstered our conclusion with the facts that the charging document did include Reyna's year of birth in its caption and did state at the bottom of the page that the charges were for off-grid crimes. 290 Kan. at 678; see also State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 151 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012) (charging document omitted defendants age; any deficiency did not invalidate defendant's conviction or sentence); State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242, 252 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012) (listing cases rejecting defendant's argument of deficient charging document based on omission of defendant's age); State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 2016We bolstered our conclusion with the facts that the charging document did include Reyna's year of birth in its caption and did state at the bottom of the page that the charges were for off-grid crimes. 290 Kan. at 678; see also State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 151 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012) (charging document omitted defendants age; any deficiency did not invalidate defendant's conviction or sentence); State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242, 252 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012) (listing cases rejecting defendant's argument of deficient charging document based on omission of defendant's age); State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. | 4 | 2011–2016 |
State v. Sellers
green
2 sentences2016We bolstered our conclusion with the facts that the charging document did include Reyna's year of birth in its caption and did state at the bottom of the page that the charges were for off-grid crimes. 290 Kan. at 678; see also State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 151 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012) (charging document omitted defendants age; any deficiency did not invalidate defendant's conviction or sentence); State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242, 252 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012) (listing cases rejecting defendant's argument of deficient charging document based on omission of defendant's age); State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 2016We bolstered our conclusion with the facts that the charging document did include Reyna's year of birth in its caption and did state at the bottom of the page that the charges were for off-grid crimes. 290 Kan. at 678; see also State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 151 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012) (charging document omitted defendants age; any deficiency did not invalidate defendant's conviction or sentence); State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242, 252 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012) (listing cases rejecting defendant's argument of deficient charging document based on omission of defendant's age); State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Sellers
green
2 sentences2016We bolstered our conclusion with the facts that the charging document did include Reyna's year of birth in its caption and did state at the bottom of the page that the charges were for off-grid crimes. 290 Kan. at 678; see also State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 151 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012) (charging document omitted defendants age; any deficiency did not invalidate defendant's conviction or sentence); State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242, 252 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012) (listing cases rejecting defendant's argument of deficient charging document based on omission of defendant's age); State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 2016We bolstered our conclusion with the facts that the charging document did include Reyna's year of birth in its caption and did state at the bottom of the page that the charges were for off-grid crimes. 290 Kan. at 678; see also State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 151 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012) (charging document omitted defendants age; any deficiency did not invalidate defendant's conviction or sentence); State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242, 252 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012) (listing cases rejecting defendant's argument of deficient charging document based on omission of defendant's age); State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Portillo
green
2 sentences2016We bolstered our conclusion with the facts that the charging document did include Reyna's year of birth in its caption and did state at the bottom of the page that the charges were for off-grid crimes. 290 Kan. at 678; see also State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 151 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012) (charging document omitted defendants age; any deficiency did not invalidate defendant's conviction or sentence); State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242, 252 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012) (listing cases rejecting defendant's argument of deficient charging document based on omission of defendant's age); State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. 2016We bolstered our conclusion with the facts that the charging document did include Reyna's year of birth in its caption and did state at the bottom of the page that the charges were for off-grid crimes. 290 Kan. at 678; see also State v. Holman, 295 Kan. 116, 151 , 284 P.3d 251 (2012) (charging document omitted defendants age; any deficiency did not invalidate defendant's conviction or sentence); State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242, 252 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012) (listing cases rejecting defendant's argument of deficient charging document based on omission of defendant's age); State v. Sellers, 292 Kan. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Jolly
green
1 sentence2020K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6627(d)(1) grants the district court the discretion to sentence the defendant under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act for a Jessica's Law violation, rather than the presumptive sentence of lifetime imprisonment, if the court "finds substantial and compelling reasons, following a review of mitigating circumstances, to impose a departure." Substantial means "something that is real, not imagined, something with substance and not ephemeral"; compelling "implies that the court is forced, by the facts of a case, to leave the status quo or go beyond what is ordinary." Jolly, 3 | 1 | 2020–2020 |