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 2 courts 2014–2022 4 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. Sotogreen2 sentences2021There, this court concluded K.S.A. 21-4635 violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied in Alleyne "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." 299 Kan. 102 , Syl. ¶ 9. 2021There, this court concluded K.S.A. 21-4635 violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied in Alleyne "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." 299 Kan. 102 , Syl. ¶ 9. | 2 | 12 |
State v. Roedergreen2 sentences2015See State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 942 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014). 2015See State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 942 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hiltgreen2 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 2014See 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 | 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. Astorga
green
2 sentences2016F olio wing Alleyne, we have held the hard 50 sentencing scheme *459 in effect at die time of Walkers crime violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it “permitted 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.” State v. Astorga, 299 Kan. 395, 397-98 , 324 P.3d 1046 (2014). 2016F olio wing Alleyne, we have held the hard 50 sentencing scheme *459 in effect at die time of Walkers crime violated the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it “permitted 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.” State v. Astorga, 299 Kan. 395, 397-98 , 324 P.3d 1046 (2014). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
red
2 sentences2016Citing Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S. Ct. 1219 , 140 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1998), however, the Alleyne Court made it clear that tire Constitution does not require that the fact of a prior conviction be determined by a juiy. 2016Citing Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S. Ct. 1219 , 140 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1998), however, the Alleyne Court made it clear that tire Constitution does not require that the fact of a prior conviction be determined by a juiy. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.