conviction exception in Kansas

37 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Ivorygreen kan · 2002 · cited in 6 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2014 2 sentences 2007The Ivory court analyzed the prior conviction exception to the Apprendi rule and relied upon language from Apprendi indicating that proof of prior convictions as sentencing enhancements need not be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 273 Kan. at 46 . 2002The prior conviction exception was recognized by our Supreme Court in State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 , 41 P.3d 781 (2002). *1016 We must determine whether the persistent sex offender statute violates Apprendi and Gould .	1	6
State v. Wrightgreen kan · 1976 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2018 2 sentences 2018See State v. Wright , 221 Kan. 132 , 140, 557 P.2d 1267 (1976) (information's language properly taken from correct statute; defendant received adequate notice of charge despite typographical error in citation). 2001We found that Wright’s contention lacked merit, noting that section (2) of K.S.A. 22-3201 (Weeks), provided: “ ‘Error in the citation or its omission shall be not ground for dismissal of the complaint, information or indictment or for reversal of a conviction if the error or omission did not prejudice the defendant.’ ” Wright, 221 Kan. at 140 . *62 The State here observes that the original information had no typographical error and that Hooker was bound over for trial on the original information.	1	2
State v. Muhammadgreen kan · 1985 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996While juvenile proceedings are considered civil in nature and totally separate from any criminal implications, State v. Muhamad 677 237 Kan. 850 , Syl. ¶ 2, 703 P.2d 835 (1985), the similarity in language and purpose of K.S.A. 38-1622 and K.S.A. 22-3201 would indicate such statutes should be considered in pari materia. 1996While juvenile proceedings are considered civil in nature and totally separate from any criminal implications, State v. Muhamad 677 237 Kan. 850 , Syl. ¶ 2, 703 P.2d 835 (1985), the similarity in language and purpose of K.S.A. 38-1622 and K.S.A. 22-3201 would indicate such statutes should be considered in pari materia.	1	2
State v. Menardgreen ri · 2005 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015App. at 480-81 ; see also State v. Moya, 141 N.M. 817, 819-22 , 161 P.3d 862 (2007) (rejecting the argument that prior conviction of Utah misdemeanor could not be treated as a felony conviction; New Mexico law controlled whether conviction was misdemeanor or felony); State v. Menard, 888 A.2d 57, 61 (R.I. 2005) (defendant was properly convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm because his prior Arizona conviction for arson was a “ 'crime of violence’ ” under Rhode Island law); Farnsworth v. Com., 43 Va. App. 490, 496-98 , 599 S.E.2d 482 (2004), aff'd 270 Va. 1 , 613 S.E.2d 459 (2005) (defen	1	1
State v. Moyagreen nm · 2007 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015App. at 480-81 ; see also State v. Moya, 141 N.M. 817, 819-22 , 161 P.3d 862 (2007) (rejecting the argument that prior conviction of Utah misdemeanor could not be treated as a felony conviction; New Mexico law controlled whether conviction was misdemeanor or felony); State v. Menard, 888 A.2d 57, 61 (R.I. 2005) (defendant was properly convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm because his prior Arizona conviction for arson was a “ 'crime of violence’ ” under Rhode Island law); Farnsworth v. Com., 43 Va. App. 490, 496-98 , 599 S.E.2d 482 (2004), aff'd 270 Va. 1 , 613 S.E.2d 459 (2005) (defen 2015App. at 480-81 ; see also State v. Moya, 141 N.M. 817, 819-22 , 161 P.3d 862 (2007) (rejecting the argument that prior conviction of Utah misdemeanor could not be treated as a felony conviction; New Mexico law controlled whether conviction was misdemeanor or felony); State v. Menard, 888 A.2d 57, 61 (R.I. 2005) (defendant was properly convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm because his prior Arizona conviction for arson was a “ 'crime of violence’ ” under Rhode Island law); Farnsworth v. Com., 43 Va. App. 490, 496-98 , 599 S.E.2d 482 (2004), aff'd 270 Va. 1 , 613 S.E.2d 459 (2005) (defen	1	1
Alleyne v. United Statesgreen · 2013 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See Alleyne, 133 S. Ct. at 2160 n.1.	1	1
State v. McCaslingreen kan · 2011 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011See State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 , Syl. ¶ 25, 245 P.3d 1030 (2011); State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 46-48 , 41 P.3d 781 (2002). 2011See State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 , Syl. ¶ 25, 245 P.3d 1030 (2011); State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 46-48 , 41 P.3d 781 (2002).	1	1
State v. Cartergreen kan · 2007 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009See State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418, 436-37 , 172 P.3d 1165 (2007) (“the instruction as given is inaccurate and misleading . . . [,nevertheless,] when the instruction accompanies all of the rest of the instructions given before deliberations, there is no error”); Carter, 284 Kan. at 330-31 (no error when PIK Crim. 3d 68.12 provided before deliberations with all jury instructions).	1	1
State v. Nguyengreen kan · 2007 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418, 436-37 , 172 P.3d 1165 (2007) (“the instruction as given is inaccurate and misleading . . . [,nevertheless,] when the instruction accompanies all of the rest of the instructions given before deliberations, there is no error”); Carter, 284 Kan. at 330-31 (no error when PIK Crim. 3d 68.12 provided before deliberations with all jury instructions). 2009See State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418, 436-37 , 172 P.3d 1165 (2007) (“the instruction as given is inaccurate and misleading . . . [,nevertheless,] when the instruction accompanies all of the rest of the instructions given before deliberations, there is no error”); Carter, 284 Kan. at 330-31 (no error when PIK Crim. 3d 68.12 provided before deliberations with all jury instructions).	1	1
Kansas v. McElroygreen kan · 2006 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See State v. McElroy, 281 Kan. 256, 261 , 130 P.3d 100 (2006). 2009See State v. McElroy, 281 Kan. 256, 261 , 130 P.3d 100 (2006).	1	1
State v. Trottergreen kan · 2006 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See State v. Trotter, 280 Kan. 800, 805 , 127 P.3d 972 (2006); State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113, 134 , 119 P.3d 1148 (2005). 2008See State v. Trotter, 280 Kan. 800, 805 , 127 P.3d 972 (2006); State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113, 134 , 119 P.3d 1148 (2005).	1	1
Lopez v. Peoplegreen colo · 2005 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005Kan. 2005) (unpublished opinion filed April 7, 2005) (applying Moore in holding Almendarez-Torres remains good law after Booker ); Lopez v. People, 113 P.3d 713, 723 (Colo. 2005) ("Although there is some doubt about the continued vitality of the prior conviction exception, we conclude that it remains valid after Blakely. ").	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (30)

Case	Cited	Years
Almendarez-Torres v. United States red scotus · 1998 2 sentences 2007Ed. 2d 350 , 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), the source of the prior conviction exception, had been called into doubt by Apprendi. 2006The prior conviction exception was derived from the holding 2 years earlier in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 140 L.	9	2002–2007
State v. Salts green kan · 2009 2 sentences 2011The court also noted, when discussing other portions of PIK Crim.3d 68.12, "our criticisms of other language found in PIK Crim.3d 68.12 have never led to reversal of a conviction when the instruction was given before jury deliberations began." 288 Kan. at 266, 200 P.3d 464 . 2010Salts, 288 Kan. at 266 ; State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216 , 145 P.3d 1 (2006); State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003).	2	2010–2011
City of Burlington v. Stockwell neutral kanctapp · 1895 2 sentences 1995In City of Burlington v. Stockwell, 1 Kan. 1976In City of Burlington v. Stockwell, 1 Kan.	2	1976–1995
State v. Wall green kan · 1971 2 sentences 2021The court noted: "[The statute] contains no express requirement that knowledge on the part of a motor vehicle operator that he has been in a collision is necessary to sustain a conviction for its violation; however, we believe such showing is essential." Wall, 206 Kan. at 764 . 2021Because the statute requires a driver to stop and furnish information to anyone who may have been injured, implicit within the statute "must be the element of recognition or awareness on the part of that driver of the fact of the collision." 206 Kan. at 764 .	1	2021–2021
State v. Hargrove green kanctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2018Gordon Atcheson, writing for the panel, questioned: "Should the [invited-error] doctrine extinguish a criminal defendant's appeal of a conviction when that challenge rests on a constitutional defect arising from actions the defendant's lawyer asked the district court to take?" 48 Kan. 2018App. 2d at 524 , 293 P.3d 787 .	1	2018–2018
Farnsworth v. Commonwealth green vactapp · 2004 2 sentences 2015App. at 480-81 ; see also State v. Moya, 141 N.M. 817, 819-22 , 161 P.3d 862 (2007) (rejecting the argument that prior conviction of Utah misdemeanor could not be treated as a felony conviction; New Mexico law controlled whether conviction was misdemeanor or felony); State v. Menard, 888 A.2d 57, 61 (R.I. 2005) (defendant was properly convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm because his prior Arizona conviction for arson was a “ 'crime of violence’ ” under Rhode Island law); Farnsworth v. Com., 43 Va. App. 490, 496-98 , 599 S.E.2d 482 (2004), aff'd 270 Va. 1 , 613 S.E.2d 459 (2005) (defen 2015App. at 480-81 ; see also State v. Moya, 141 N.M. 817, 819-22 , 161 P.3d 862 (2007) (rejecting the argument that prior conviction of Utah misdemeanor could not be treated as a felony conviction; New Mexico law controlled whether conviction was misdemeanor or felony); State v. Menard, 888 A.2d 57, 61 (R.I. 2005) (defendant was properly convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm because his prior Arizona conviction for arson was a “ 'crime of violence’ ” under Rhode Island law); Farnsworth v. Com., 43 Va. App. 490, 496-98 , 599 S.E.2d 482 (2004), aff'd 270 Va. 1 , 613 S.E.2d 459 (2005) (defen	1	2015–2015
Brown v. Handgun Permit Review Board green mdctspecapp · 2009 1 sentence 2015The Maryland court found the denial was proper because such a conviction would bar a person from receiving a gun permit if the crime had occurred in Maryland. 188 Md.	1	2015–2015
State v. Tapia green kanctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2015State v. Tapia, 42 Kan.	1	2015–2015
Farnsworth v. Com. green va · 2005 2 sentences 2015App. at 480-81 ; see also State v. Moya, 141 N.M. 817, 819-22 , 161 P.3d 862 (2007) (rejecting the argument that prior conviction of Utah misdemeanor could not be treated as a felony conviction; New Mexico law controlled whether conviction was misdemeanor or felony); State v. Menard, 888 A.2d 57, 61 (R.I. 2005) (defendant was properly convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm because his prior Arizona conviction for arson was a “ 'crime of violence’ ” under Rhode Island law); Farnsworth v. Com., 43 Va. App. 490, 496-98 , 599 S.E.2d 482 (2004), aff'd 270 Va. 1 , 613 S.E.2d 459 (2005) (defen 2015App. at 480-81 ; see also State v. Moya, 141 N.M. 817, 819-22 , 161 P.3d 862 (2007) (rejecting the argument that prior conviction of Utah misdemeanor could not be treated as a felony conviction; New Mexico law controlled whether conviction was misdemeanor or felony); State v. Menard, 888 A.2d 57, 61 (R.I. 2005) (defendant was properly convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm because his prior Arizona conviction for arson was a “ 'crime of violence’ ” under Rhode Island law); Farnsworth v. Com., 43 Va. App. 490, 496-98 , 599 S.E.2d 482 (2004), aff'd 270 Va. 1 , 613 S.E.2d 459 (2005) (defen	1	2015–2015
Mashaney v. Board of Indigents' Defense Services green kanctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2015But this clearly does not establish that the defendant was innocent of the charge.” Mashaney, 49 Kan.	1	2015–2015
State v. Makthepharak green kan · 2003 2 sentences 2010Salts, 288 Kan. at 266 ; State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216 , 145 P.3d 1 (2006); State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003). 2010Salts, 288 Kan. at 266 ; State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216 , 145 P.3d 1 (2006); State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003).	1	2010–2010
State v. Anthony green kan · 2006 2 sentences 2010Salts, 288 Kan. at 266 ; State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216 , 145 P.3d 1 (2006); State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003). 2010Salts, 288 Kan. at 266 ; State v. Anthony, 282 Kan. 201, 216 , 145 P.3d 1 (2006); State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003).	1	2010–2010
State v. Engelhardt green kan · 2005 2 sentences 2008See State v. Trotter, 280 Kan. 800, 805 , 127 P.3d 972 (2006); State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113, 134 , 119 P.3d 1148 (2005). 2008See State v. Trotter, 280 Kan. 800, 805 , 127 P.3d 972 (2006); State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113, 134 , 119 P.3d 1148 (2005).	1	2008–2008
State v. Moore green kan · 2002 1 sentence 2007Thus, this court found that under the prior conviction exception to Apprendi , the doubling of Moore’s sentence was constitutional in that he had been convicted of all of the crimes in question, and tire legislature had statutorily defined each of tírese as a sexually violent crime. 274 Kan. at 653-54 .	1	2007–2007
United States v. Shannon Wayne Tighe green ca9 · 2001 1 sentence 2002The question becomes whether the absence of the jury trial safeguard in juvenile adjudications is enough to remove it from the narrow exception for prior convictions built into the Apprendi rule. *230 Post-Apprendi Analysis Our search for an answer to the above question leads us to U.S. v. Tighe, 266 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001).	1	2002–2002
State v. Masterson green kan · 1996 1 sentence 1998In Masterson, 261 Kan. 158 , the defendant was also convicted of driving under the influence in violation of K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 8-1567.	1	1998–1998
Wisner v. State green kan · 1975 2 sentences 1984State v. Robinson, Lloyd & Clark, 229 Kan. 301, 304-05 , 624 P.2d 964 (1981); State v. Howell & Taylor, 226 Kan. 511, 513-14 , 601 P.2d 1141 (1979); Wisner v. State, 216 Kan. 523, 524 , 532 P.2d 1051 (1975); State v. Minor, 197 Kan. 296, 299 , 416 P.2d 724 (1966). 1984State v. Robinson, Lloyd & Clark, 229 Kan. 301, 304-05 , 624 P.2d 964 (1981); State v. Howell & Taylor, 226 Kan. 511, 513-14 , 601 P.2d 1141 (1979); Wisner v. State, 216 Kan. 523, 524 , 532 P.2d 1051 (1975); State v. Minor, 197 Kan. 296, 299 , 416 P.2d 724 (1966).	1	1984–1984
State v. Howell & Taylor green kan · 1979 2 sentences 1984State v. Robinson, Lloyd & Clark, 229 Kan. 301, 304-05 , 624 P.2d 964 (1981); State v. Howell & Taylor, 226 Kan. 511, 513-14 , 601 P.2d 1141 (1979); Wisner v. State, 216 Kan. 523, 524 , 532 P.2d 1051 (1975); State v. Minor, 197 Kan. 296, 299 , 416 P.2d 724 (1966). 1984State v. Robinson, Lloyd & Clark, 229 Kan. 301, 304-05 , 624 P.2d 964 (1981); State v. Howell & Taylor, 226 Kan. 511, 513-14 , 601 P.2d 1141 (1979); Wisner v. State, 216 Kan. 523, 524 , 532 P.2d 1051 (1975); State v. Minor, 197 Kan. 296, 299 , 416 P.2d 724 (1966).	1	1984–1984
State v. Robinson, Lloyd & Clark green kan · 1981	1	1984–1984
State v. Minor green kan · 1966	1	1984–1984
Jackson v. Virginia red scotus · 1979	1	1981–1981
State v. Lucas green kan · 1976	1	1981–1981
State v. Voiles green kan · 1979	1	1981–1981
State v. Washington green kan · 1979	1	1981–1981
City of Overland Park v. Sandy green kan · 1978	1	1979–1979
Delaware v. Prouse green scotus · 1979	1	1979–1979
City of Kettering v. Greene neutral ohio · 1966	1	1977–1977
Chapman v. California red scotus · 1967	1	1969–1969
State v. Shiffler neutral kan · 1914	1	1928–1928
State v. Briggs neutral · 1915	1	1928–1928

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 22-3201 (8) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4704 (7) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3401 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4701 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3414 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4710 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4721 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 20-3018 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4716 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-1507 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-456 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 247 (1893–2026) TX 185 (1885–2026) IL 128 (1902–2026) LA 100 (1925–2025) MI 97 (1912–2026) GA 97 (1891–2025) PA 92 (1944–2025) OH 90 (1943–2026) NY 75 (1888–2024) WA 71 (1904–2026) IN 58 (1879–2026) CO 57 (1957–2025) FL 48 (1926–2026) MO 46 (1906–2025) MN 38 (1886–2024) KS 37 (1928–2021) NJ 36 (1938–2026) OR 34 (1964–2021) VA 33 (1913–2026) CT 31 (1947–2018) TN 30 (1930–2025) AL 30 (1910–2025) MS 27 (1909–2023) MD 25 (1949–2023) IA 25 (1914–2022) AZ 24 (1926–2026) NM 24 (1968–2020) MA 24 (1943–2025) OK 24 (1920–2009) NC 21 (1938–2024) NE 18 (1940–2026) AR 18 (1894–2019) RI 17 (1924–2026) HI 17 (1975–2025) SD 17 (1982–2023) WI 17 (1897–2025) WY 16 (1959–2023) UT 15 (1990–2024) DC 13 (1960–2011) ID 13 (1939–2024) KY 13 (1917–2023) AK 12 (1965–2012) VT 10 (1906–2016) SC 8 (1958–2018) ME 8 (1917–2015) MT 7 (1939–2025) WV 6 (1942–2024) NV 4 (1976–2019) ND 4 (1911–2022) NH 3 (1978–2015) DE 2 (1976–2013)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check