Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Kansas opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hiltgreen2 sentences2020This court has stated it would only be in "rare instances when a hard 50 Alleyne error can be declared harmless." State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 205 , 322 P.3d 367 (2014). 2020This court has stated it would only be in "rare instances when a hard 50 Alleyne error can be declared harmless." State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 205 , 322 P.3d 367 (2014). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Sotogreen2 sentences2014See Soto, 299 Kan. at 124 (holding statutory procedure for imposing hard 50 sentence unconstitutional “because it permits a judge to find by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of one or more aggravating factors necessary to impose an increased mandatory minimum sentence, rather than requiring a jury to find the existence of the aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt”); see also State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 203 , 322 P.3d 367 (2014) (applying Soto to conclude that judge’s finding of four aggravating circumstances by preponderance-of-the-evidence standard constituted Alleyne er 2014Soto, 299 Kan. at 127-28 ; see also Hilt, 299 Kan. at 205 (assuming without deciding that harmlessness applies but concluding case did not present “one of the rare instances when a hard 50 Alleyne error can be declared harmless”)- Like Soto and Hilt , this is not that rare case. | 3 | 8 |
State v. Monclagreen2 sentences2017See Moncla, 301 Kan. at 553-54 (holding a defendant could not assert an Alleyne violation through 22-3504[1] "'[b]ecause the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that the sentence violates a 5 constitutional provision'" [quoting State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374, 377 , 162 P.3d 18 (2007)]). 2017See Moncla, 301 Kan. at 553-54 (holding a defendant could not assert an Alleyne violation through 22-3504[1] "'[b]ecause the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that the sentence violates a 5 constitutional provision'" [quoting State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374, 377 , 162 P.3d 18 (2007)]). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2017See Moncla, 301 Kan. at 553-54 (holding a defendant could not assert an Alleyne violation through 22-3504[1] "'[b]ecause the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that the sentence violates a 5 constitutional provision'" [quoting State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374, 377 , 162 P.3d 18 (2007)]). 2017See Moncla, 301 Kan. at 553-54 (holding a defendant could not assert an Alleyne violation through 22-3504[1] "'[b]ecause the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that the sentence violates a 5 constitutional provision'" [quoting State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374, 377 , 162 P.3d 18 (2007)]). | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Recuencogreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 222 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 , 165 L. 2014See, e.g., Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 222 , 126 S. Ct. 2546 , 165 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Alejandro Umana
green
1 sentence2022It rejected the defendant's contention that the Apprendi/Ring/Alleyne rule compelled the extension of the Confrontation Clause "to every fact that the jury finds, even during the sentence selection phase." (Emphases added.) 750 F.3d at 347 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2014There, we noted that “an Alleyne error is also an Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2014There, we noted that “an Alleyne error is also an Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Reyna
green
2 sentences2014Citing Reyna, 290 Kan. at 681 , the State contends this court can apply a harmless error review to the omission of an element from the jury instruction and, therefore, it can apply a harmless error review in the hard 50 context to the failure of a jury to decide an aggravating circumstance, which Alleyne holds is an “element” rather than a sentencing factor. 2014Citing Reyna, 290 Kan. at 681 , the State contends this court can apply a harmless error review to the omission of an element from the jury instruction and, therefore, it can apply a harmless error review in the hard 50 context to the failure of a jury to decide an aggravating circumstance, which Alleyne holds is an “element” rather than a sentencing factor. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.
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.