92 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 34 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2020Given Schmeal's repeated admissions throughout the proceedings about his age, the district court's finding that he was at least 18 years old when he committed the crime of conviction falls under the Blakely exception to the Apprendi rule when the defendant admits a fact. 542 U.S. at 303 (fact established by guilty plea). 2020Given Schmeal's repeated admissions throughout the proceedings about his age, the district court's finding that he was at least 18 years old when he committed the crime of conviction falls under the Blakely exception to the Apprendi rule when the defendant admits a fact. 542 U.S. at 303 (fact established by guilty plea). | 5 | 8 |
State v. Conleygreen2 sentences2007Whillock acknowledges he did not raise the Apprendi issue below, but we will address the challenge, as our Supreme Court has previously done in Gould, 271 Kan. at 404-05 , and State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18, 30-31 , 11 P.3d 1147 (2000), cert. denied 532 U.S. 932 (2001). 2007Whillock acknowledges he did not raise the Apprendi issue below, but we will address the challenge, as our Supreme Court has previously done in Gould, 271 Kan. at 404-05 , and State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18, 30-31 , 11 P.3d 1147 (2000), cert. denied 532 U.S. 932 (2001). | 5 | 7 |
McMillan v. Pennsylvaniared2 sentences2022See State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18 , 11 P.3d 1147 (2000) (relying on McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 , 106 S. Ct. 2411 , 91 L. 2022See State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18 , 11 P.3d 1147 (2000) (relying on McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 , 106 S. Ct. 2411 , 91 L. | 5 | 5 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2009Apprendi issue Finally, Long claims that his constitutional rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L. 2009Apprendi issue Finally, Long claims that his constitutional rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L. | 4 | 17 |
State v. Nunezgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Nunez, 319 Kan. 351 , 356, 554 P.3d 656 (2024) (finding that an Apprendi violation could be deemed harmless if the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence); State v. Sanders, 65 Kan. 2026See State v. Nunez, 319 Kan. 351 , 356, 554 P.3d 656 (2024) (finding that an Apprendi violation could be deemed harmless if the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence); State v. Sanders, 65 Kan. | 3 | 3 |
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinezgreen2 sentences2017See Meredith, 306 Kan. at __, slip op. at 10 ("[A]nalysis of the [Kennedy v.] Mendoza-Martinez[, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 , 83 S. Ct. 554 , 9 L. 2017See Meredith, 306 Kan. at __, slip op. at 10 ("[A]nalysis of the [Kennedy v.] Mendoza-Martinez[, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 , 83 S. Ct. 554 , 9 L. | 3 | 3 |
Washington v. Recuencogreen2 sentences2010This court in Reyna also relied on Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), in which the United States Supreme Court addressed whether an Apprendi violation is structural error. 2010This court in Reyna also relied on Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), in which the United States Supreme Court addressed whether an Apprendi violation is structural error. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Carrgreen2 sentences2024State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1049 , 318 P.3d 1005 (2014) (errors are harmless if the record contains no evidence which '"could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the element that the defendant was over the age of 18 at the time of the crime"' [quoting State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 682 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010)]); see State v. Carr, 314 Kan. 615 , Syl. ¶ 25, 502 P.3d 546 (2022)." Nunez, 319 Kan. at 356. 2024State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1049 , 318 P.3d 1005 (2014) (errors are harmless if the record contains no evidence which '"could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the element that the defendant was over the age of 18 at the time of the crime"' [quoting State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 682 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010)]); see State v. Carr, 314 Kan. 615 , Syl. ¶ 25, 502 P.3d 546 (2022)." Nunez, 319 Kan. at 356. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fewellgreen2 sentences2021See also State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370, 396 , 184 P.3d 903 (2008) (affirming Ivory). 2021See also State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370, 396 , 184 P.3d 903 (2008) (affirming Ivory). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Maygreen2 sentences2017App.) (unpublished opinion) rev. denied 303 Kan. 1080 (2015); see, e.g., State v. May, 39 Kan. 2017App.) (unpublished opinion) rev. denied 303 Kan. 1080 (2015); see, e.g., State v. May, 39 Kan. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 304 Kan. 924, 956 , 376 P.3d 70 2 (2016); State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 45-48 , 41 P.3d 781 (2002). 2017See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 304 Kan. 924, 956 , 376 P.3d 70 2 (2016); State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 45-48 , 41 P.3d 781 (2002). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Reynagreen2 sentences2021The Kansas Supreme Court analyzed the harmlessness of an Apprendi violation in State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016). 2021The Kansas Supreme Court analyzed the harmlessness of an Apprendi violation in State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016). | 1 | 7 |
State v. Gouldgreen2 sentences2019Notably, Gould clarified that the Apprendi rule must be applied to all cases pending on direct appeal, cases which are not yet final, or cases which arose after June 26, 2000. 271 Kan. at 414 . 13 Relevant to the retroactivity issue presented here, the Dawson court acknowledged defendant's argument that Dickey was not a change in the law but instead was an application of the constitutional rule announced in Apprendi and clarified by Descamps. 2019Notably, Gould clarified that the Apprendi rule must be applied to all cases pending on direct appeal, cases which are not yet final, or cases which arose after June 26, 2000. 271 Kan. at 414 . 13 Relevant to the retroactivity issue presented here, the Dawson court acknowledged defendant's argument that Dickey was not a change in the law but instead was an application of the constitutional rule announced in Apprendi and clarified by Descamps. | 1 | 5 |
| Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of Manhattangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. J.L.J.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Huertagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kirtdollgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morales v. Harrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Young v. Ocasiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dickeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bernhard Dohrmann v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Milkiewiczgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Rattlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Gerald Greengreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 39689green | 1 | 1 |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF—APPELLEE v. ROBERT ALLEN CARRUTH, DEFENDANT—APPELLANTgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Rachel Shannon Sosebee (03-1923) and Jack P. Farris (03-2219)green | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 793360green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Lionel Reifler, Glenn B. Laken, John M. Black, Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Gregory Wolfegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hernandezgreen | 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. Ivory
green
2 sentences2021Our Supreme Court adopted the Apprendi analysis in State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 46-48 , 41 P.3d 781 (2002), holding that the use of prior criminal history does not violate a defendant's constitutional rights. 2021Our Supreme Court adopted the Apprendi analysis in State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 46-48 , 41 P.3d 781 (2002), holding that the use of prior criminal history does not violate a defendant's constitutional rights. | 11 | 2002–2021 |
United States v. Booker
green
2 sentences2021Ed. 2d 621 (2005), the United States Supreme Court recognized an exception to the Apprendi rule when the defendant admits a fact. 543 U.S. at 244 . 2021Ed. 2d 621 (2005), the United States Supreme Court recognized an exception to the Apprendi rule when the defendant admits a fact. 543 U.S. at 244 . | 6 | 2006–2023 |
State v. Hitt
green
2 sentences2009In State v. Hitt, 273 Kan. 224, 229 , 42 P.3d 732 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 1104 (2003), this court considered the question “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 rale.” Hitt answered that question in the negative, finding that “[jjuvenile adjudications are included within the historical cloak of recidivism and enjoy ample procedural safeguards” to permit them to be encompassed within the Apprendi exception for prior convictions. 273 Kan. at 236 . 2009In State v. Hitt, 273 Kan. 224, 229 , 42 P.3d 732 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 1104 (2003), this court considered the question “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 rale.” Hitt answered that question in the negative, finding that “[jjuvenile adjudications are included within the historical cloak of recidivism and enjoy ample procedural safeguards” to permit them to be encompassed within the Apprendi exception for prior convictions. 273 Kan. at 236 . | 6 | 2002–2009 |
State v. Sanders
neutral
2 sentences2026App. 2d 236 , 253, 563 P.3d 234 (2025) (citing Nunez, finding Apprendi error harmless when evidence of defendant's age is presented and undisputed); State v. Duckworth, No. 126,677, 2024 WL 4579265 , at *5-6 (Kan. 2026App. 2d 236 , 253, 563 P.3d 234 (Apprendi violation harmless when jury not asked to find defendant was over 18 but officer testified defendant was 43 years old and defendant did not contest it), rev. denied 320 Kan. 867 (2025). | 4 | 2026–2026 |
Southern Union Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences2021Instead, our decisions broadly prohibit judicial factfinding that increases maximum criminal 'sentence[s],' 'penalties,' or 'punishment[s]'—terms that each undeniably embrace fines. [Citations omitted.]" 567 U.S. at 349-50 . 2021Southern Union, 567 U.S. at 349-50 . | 4 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Carr
green
2 sentences2020In making her argument, Vannostrand recognizes that in State v. Carr, 274 Kan. 442, 452 , 53 P.3d 843 (2002), our Supreme Court held that the Apprendi rule—requiring any fact that increases a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum to be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt— does not apply to a defendant's upward dispositional departure sentence. 2020In making her argument, Vannostrand recognizes that in State v. Carr, 274 Kan. 442, 452 , 53 P.3d 843 (2002), our Supreme Court held that the Apprendi rule—requiring any fact that increases a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum to be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt— does not apply to a defendant's upward dispositional departure sentence. | 3 | 2002–2020 |
Descamps v. United States
green
2 sentences2019In making this comparison, the Dickey I court adopted the Apprendi analysis used by the United States Supreme Court in Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 278 , 4 133 S. Ct. 2276 , 186 L. 2019In making this comparison, the Dickey I court adopted the Apprendi analysis used by the United States Supreme Court in Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 278 , 4 133 S. Ct. 2276 , 186 L. | 2 | 2019–2026 |
State v. Conkling
green
2 sentences2026App. 2d [841,] 844[, 540 P.3d 414 (2023)] (finding no Apprendi violation when defendant admitted age in signed plea agreement and financial affidavit, and listing several unpublished cases that have rejected defendant's argument); State v. Duckworth, No. 126,677, 2024 WL 4579265 , at *5-6 (Kan. 2026App. 2d [841,] 844[, 540 P.3d 414 (2023)] (finding no Apprendi violation when defendant admitted age in signed plea agreement and financial affidavit, and listing several unpublished cases that have rejected defendant's argument); State v. Duckworth, No. 126,677, 2024 WL 4579265 , at *5-6 (Kan. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Reese
green
2 sentences2025The Reese court examined the sentencing provision in K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8- 1567(j)(3), requiring that "'only convictions occurring on or after July 1, 2001, shall be taken into account when determining the sentence to be imposed.'" Reese, 300 Kan. at 8 657. 2025The Reese court examined the sentencing provision in K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 8- 1567(j)(3), requiring that "'only convictions occurring on or after July 1, 2001, shall be taken into account when determining the sentence to be imposed.'" Reese, 300 Kan. at 8 657. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2025App. 3d 815, 821 , 841 N.E.2d 532 (2005) (finding "defendant's age and prior convictions and the timing, degree, number and sequence of defendant's prior convictions" fell under Apprendi exception). 2025App. 3d 815, 821 , 841 N.E.2d 532 (2005) (finding "defendant's age and prior convictions and the timing, degree, number and sequence of defendant's prior convictions" fell under Apprendi exception). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2024State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1049 , 318 P.3d 1005 (2014) (errors are harmless if the record contains no evidence which '"could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the element that the defendant was over the age of 18 at the time of the crime"' [quoting State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 682 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010)]); see State v. Carr, 314 Kan. 615 , Syl. ¶ 25, 502 P.3d 546 (2022)." Nunez, 319 Kan. at 356. 2024State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1049 , 318 P.3d 1005 (2014) (errors are harmless if the record contains no evidence which '"could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the element that the defendant was over the age of 18 at the time of the crime"' [quoting State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 682 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010)]); see State v. Carr, 314 Kan. 615 , Syl. ¶ 25, 502 P.3d 546 (2022)." Nunez, 319 Kan. at 356. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Alleyne v. United States
green
2 sentences2021The Court later expanded the Apprendi rule in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 103 , 133 S. Ct. 2151 , 186 L. 2021The Court later expanded the Apprendi rule in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 103 , 133 S. Ct. 2151 , 186 L. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
State v. Unrein
green
2 sentences2022App. 2d 366, 369 , 274 P.3d 691 (2012) (considering Apprendi issue for first time on appeal to prevent denial of fundamental rights). 12 Does K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6804(h) Violate Apprendi? 2020App. 2d 366, 369 , 274 P.3d 691 (2012) (considering Apprendi issue for first time on appeal to prevent denial of fundamental rights). | 2 | 2020–2022 |
Oregon v. Ice
green
2 sentences2021Courts applying that rule must consider "whether the finding of a particular fact was understood as within 'the domain of the jury . . . by those who framed the Bill of Rights.'" Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 168 , 129 S. Ct. 711 , 172 L. 2021Courts applying that rule must consider "whether the finding of a particular fact was understood as within 'the domain of the jury . . . by those who framed the Bill of Rights.'" Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 168 , 129 S. Ct. 711 , 172 L. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Daniels
green
2 sentences2021To paraphrase the Kansas Supreme Court when it found an Apprendi violation harmless in a previous case, the evidence of that fact was "essentially uncontroverted." State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53 , 13 65, 91 P.3d 1147 (2004). 2021To paraphrase the Kansas Supreme Court when it found an Apprendi violation harmless in a previous case, the evidence of that fact was "essentially uncontroverted." State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53 , 13 65, 91 P.3d 1147 (2004). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
United States v. Roger Day, Jr.
green
2 sentences2020In Day, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also rejected the defendant's claim that Southern Union compelled a finding that the Apprendi rule should be extended to orders of restitution. 700 F.3d at 731 . 2020That is, Southern Union makes clear that Apprendi requires a jury determination regarding any fact that 'increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.' [Citations omitted.] Thus, in Southern Union itself, the Apprendi issue was triggered by the fact that the district court imposed a fine in excess of the statutory maximum that applied in that case. [Citation omitted.] "Critically, however, there is no prescribed statutory maximum in the restitution context; the amount of restitution that a court may order is instead indeterminate and 15 varies based on the amount o | 2 | 2014–2020 |
State v. Dillon
neutral
2 sentences2017App.) (unpublished opinion) rev. denied 303 Kan. 1080 (2015); see, e.g., State v. May, 39 Kan. 2017App.) (unpublished opinion) rev. denied 303 Kan. 1080 (2015); see, e.g., State v. May, 39 Kan. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
| Hitt v. Kansas green | 2 | 2004–2009 |
| State v. Cody green | 2 | 2006–2007 |
| Almendarez-Torres v. United States red | 2 | 2004–2005 |
| State v. Graham green | 2 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Astorga green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Vonachen green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Garza green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Hayes green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Anderson green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Dunn green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Milton v. Farwell, Warden green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Walker green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Weis green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Robertson green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| United States v. Wooten green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Soto green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Aguilar-Cortez v. United States neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Anderson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Kenney v. New Jersey green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Wilcher v. Mississippi (Two Judgments) green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.