14 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Floridagreen2 sentences2019There are two types of proportionality challenges under the Eighth Amendment: (1) a case-specific challenge that the sentence is disproportionate "given all the circumstances in a particular case," Graham , 560 U.S. at 59 ; and (2) a categorical challenge "that an entire class of sentences is unconstitutionally disproportionate given the severity of the sentence, the gravity of the crime, and the type of offender." United States v. Williams , 636 F.3d 1229 , 1233 (9th Cir. 2011). 2017Gleason's narrower class of offender based on the facts of his crime "is so case- specific it seems to obliterate the distinction between the two categories of analysis: (1) a case-specific analysis that 'would allow courts to account for factual differences between cases' and (2) a categorical analysis." Mossman, 294 Kan. at 928 (quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 77 , 130 S. Ct. 2011 , 176 L. | 2 | 6 |
– State v. Patterson –green2 sentences2021See State v. Patterson, 311 Kan. 59 , 71, 455 P.3d 792 (2020), cert. denied 141 S. Ct. 292 (2020). 2020See State v. Patterson, 311 Kan. 59 , 71, 455 P.3d 792 (2020), cert. denied __ U.S. __, 2020 WL 5882678 (2020). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Florentingreen2 sentences2017Ed. 2d 825 [2010]); see State v. Florentin, 297 Kan. 594 , Syl. ¶ 3, 303 P.3d 263 (2013) (defendant cannot argue sentence categorically disproportionate in violation of Eighth Amendment by creating fact-specific categories relating to nature of offender and details of crime). 2017Ed. 2d 825 [2010]); see State v. Florentin, 297 Kan. 594 , Syl. ¶ 3, 303 P.3d 263 (2013) (defendant cannot argue sentence categorically disproportionate in violation of Eighth Amendment by creating fact-specific categories relating to nature of offender and details of crime). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Reedgreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., Graham, 560 U.S. at 59-60 ; State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494, 514 , 332 P.3d 172 (2014); In re J.S.P., 2020 WL 4376942 , at *9. 2020See State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494, 514 , 332 P.3d 172 (2014) (finding defendant's state and federal constitutional challenges failed for lack of preservation). | 1 | 2 |
In re Shermangreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., Graham, 560 U.S. at 59-60 ; State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494, 514 , 332 P.3d 172 (2014); In re J.S.P., 2020 WL 4376942 , at *9. 2020See State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494, 514 , 332 P.3d 172 (2014) (finding defendant's state and federal constitutional challenges failed for lack of preservation). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mossmangreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., State v. Mossman , 294 Kan. 901 , 908, 281 P.3d 153 (2012). 2017Gleason's narrower class of offender based on the facts of his crime "is so case- specific it seems to obliterate the distinction between the two categories of analysis: (1) a case-specific analysis that 'would allow courts to account for factual differences between cases' and (2) a categorical analysis." Mossman, 294 Kan. at 928 (quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 77 , 130 S. Ct. 2011 , 176 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rossgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 424, 429 , 284 P.3d 309 (2012). 2020See State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 424, 429 , 284 P.3d 309 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gomez
green
2 sentences2020Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 , Syl. ¶ 5. 2013Gomez, 290 Kan. at 863-64 . | 3 | 2013–2020 |
State v. Woodard
green
2 sentences2013Although Seward has abandoned any categorical challenge to his sentence in this case, we pause here to clarify our earlier decision in Woodard , whose language could be read to conflate the classifications of Eighth Amendment challenges with the step-by-step comparisons necessaiy to a case-specific challenge. 294 Kan. at 721-22 . 2013After briefs were filed in this case, we conducted a case-specific analysis under § 9 in State v. Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 , 280 P.3d 203 (2012), and rejected Woodard’s argument that his Jessica’s Law sentence for a conviction of aggravated indecent liberties with a child was cruel or unusual punishment. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Dotson
neutral
1 sentence2026State v. Dotson, 319 Kan. 32 , 41, 551 P.3d 1272 (2024). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
United States v. Williams
green
1 sentence2019There are two types of proportionality challenges under the Eighth Amendment: (1) a case-specific challenge that the sentence is disproportionate "given all the circumstances in a particular case," Graham , 560 U.S. at 59 ; and (2) a categorical challenge "that an entire class of sentences is unconstitutionally disproportionate given the severity of the sentence, the gravity of the crime, and the type of offender." United States v. Williams , 636 F.3d 1229 , 1233 (9th Cir. 2011). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Ruggles
green
2 sentences2019State v. Ruggles , 297 Kan. 675 , 679, 304 P.3d 338 (2013). 2019State v. Ruggles , 297 Kan. 675 , 679, 304 P.3d 338 (2013). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Britt
green
2 sentences2013Standard of Review Because a district court malees both legal and factual conclusions in reviewing whether a sentence is cruel or unusual punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, this court applies a bifurcated standard of review. “ ‘[Wjithout reweighing the evidence, the appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of the district court’s findings under a substantial competent evidence standard, and the district court’s ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts is reviewed de novo.’ ” State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018, 1031 , 287 P.3d 905 (2012) (quoting Woodard 2013Standard of Review Because a district court malees both legal and factual conclusions in reviewing whether a sentence is cruel or unusual punishment under § 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, this court applies a bifurcated standard of review. “ ‘[Wjithout reweighing the evidence, the appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of the district court’s findings under a substantial competent evidence standard, and the district court’s ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts is reviewed de novo.’ ” State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018, 1031 , 287 P.3d 905 (2012) (quoting Woodard | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.