sentence imposed violation (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

sentence imposed violation in Kansas

11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2023 7 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Applebygreen
kan · 2021 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022In other words, "'a sentence imposed in violation of Alleyne does not fall within the definition of an "illegal sentence" that may be addressed by K.S.A. 22-3504.'" Appleby, 313 Kan. at 361 (Luckert, C.J., concurring) (quoting Coleman, 312 Kan. at 120).

11
State v. Barnesgreen
kan · 2004 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006See State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 399 , 122 P.3d 356 (2005) (Frazier context); Barnes, 278 Kan. at 123-24 (2004) (McAdam context); State v. McCoin, 278 Kan. 465, 468 , 101 P.3d 1204 (McAdam context).

11
State v. Phinneygreen
kan · 2005 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006See State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 399 , 122 P.3d 356 (2005) (Frazier context); Barnes, 278 Kan. at 123-24 (2004) (McAdam context); State v. McCoin, 278 Kan. 465, 468 , 101 P.3d 1204 (McAdam context).

2006See State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 399 , 122 P.3d 356 (2005) (Frazier context); Barnes, 278 Kan. at 123-24 (2004) (McAdam context); State v. McCoin, 278 Kan. 465, 468 , 101 P.3d 1204 (McAdam context).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Moncla green
kan · 2015
2 sentences

2021But what constitutes an illegal sentence is not open ended, and this court has made clear that "a sentence imposed in violation of Alleyne does not fall within the definition of an 'illegal sentence' that may be addressed by K.S.A. 22-3504." Coleman, 312 Kan. at 120 (citing State v. Brown, 306 Kan. 330 , Syl. ¶ 1, 393 P.3d 1049 [2017]; State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549 , Syl. ¶ 4, 343 P.3d 1161 [2015]).

2021But what constitutes an illegal sentence is not open ended, and this court has made clear that "a sentence imposed in violation of Alleyne does not fall within the definition of an 'illegal sentence' that may be addressed by K.S.A. 22-3504." Coleman, 312 Kan. at 120 (citing State v. Brown, 306 Kan. 330 , Syl. ¶ 1, 393 P.3d 1049 [2017]; State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549 , Syl. ¶ 4, 343 P.3d 1161 [2015]).

52020–2021
State v. Garcia green
kan · 2009
1 sentence

2023"While the oral pronouncement of sentence from the bench was not clear on which crimes were sexually motivated, the journal entry [made] it expressly clear." Garcia, 288 Kan. at 766 .

12023–2023
State v. Coleman green
kan · 2020
1 sentence

2021In State v. Coleman, 312 Kan. 114 , 116, 472 P.3d 85 (2020), the defendant sought to modify his hard 40 sentence under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6628(c), relying on Alleyne and Soto to argue that his sentence should be modified "'to require no mandatory term of imprisonment.'" The Coleman court "consider[ed] the several ways in which Coleman's motion may be viewed." 312 Kan. at 120. 6 First, the Supreme Court determined the motion could not be construed as a motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 because "a sentence imposed in violation of Alleyne does not fall within the definitio

12021–2021
Alleyne v. United States green
· 2013
2 sentences

2020A sentence imposed in violation of the constitutional holding in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 , 133 S. Ct. 2151 , 186 L.

2020A sentence imposed in violation of the constitutional holding in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 , 133 S. Ct. 2151 , 186 L.

12020–2020
State v. McCoin green
kan · 2004
2 sentences

2006See State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 399 , 122 P.3d 356 (2005) (Frazier context); Barnes, 278 Kan. at 123-24 (2004) (McAdam context); State v. McCoin, 278 Kan. 465, 468 , 101 P.3d 1204 (McAdam context).

2006See State v. Phinney, 280 Kan. 394, 399 , 122 P.3d 356 (2005) (Frazier context); Barnes, 278 Kan. at 123-24 (2004) (McAdam context); State v. McCoin, 278 Kan. 465, 468 , 101 P.3d 1204 (McAdam context).

12006–2006
Foster v. Maynard green
kan · 1977
1 sentence

1978In Foster, 222 Kan. at 508 , our Supreme Court expressly stated, “Protective custody inmates are not placed on the east wing for disciplinary reasons.” The action of the disciplinary board in this case violates that premise: petitioner’s assignment to the east wing was indeed a sentence imposed for the violation of institutional rules.

11978–1978
Wiles v. Board of Probation & Parole green
kan · 1963
2 sentences

1967(See, Oller v. Amrine, 155 Kan. 703 , 127 P. 2d 475 .) The appellant cites Wiles v. Board of Probation & Parole, 191 Kan. 705 , 383 P. 2d 969 , where an escaped prisoner, under facts similar to those here, was prosecuted under 21-735, supra. The point here in question was not raised in that habeas corpus proceeding, and it cannot be relied upon by the appellant for support.

1967(See, Oller v. Amrine, 155 Kan. 703 , 127 P. 2d 475 .) The appellant cites Wiles v. Board of Probation & Parole, 191 Kan. 705 , 383 P. 2d 969 , where an escaped prisoner, under facts similar to those here, was prosecuted under 21-735, supra. The point here in question was not raised in that habeas corpus proceeding, and it cannot be relied upon by the appellant for support.

11967–1967
Oller v. Amrine neutral
kan · 1942
2 sentences

1967(See, Oller v. Amrine, 155 Kan. 703 , 127 P. 2d 475 .) The appellant cites Wiles v. Board of Probation & Parole, 191 Kan. 705 , 383 P. 2d 969 , where an escaped prisoner, under facts similar to those here, was prosecuted under 21-735, supra. The point here in question was not raised in that habeas corpus proceeding, and it cannot be relied upon by the appellant for support.

1967(See, Oller v. Amrine, 155 Kan. 703 , 127 P. 2d 475 .) The appellant cites Wiles v. Board of Probation & Parole, 191 Kan. 705 , 383 P. 2d 969 , where an escaped prisoner, under facts similar to those here, was prosecuted under 21-735, supra. The point here in question was not raised in that habeas corpus proceeding, and it cannot be relied upon by the appellant for support.

11967–1967

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 22-3504 (9) KS § K.S.A. § 60-1507 (8) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4635 (7) KS § K.S.A. § 21-6628 (7) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4639 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4638 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4706 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3601 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3439 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 21-6627 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3717 (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

PA 130 (1980–2026) LA 19 (1980–2025) FL 16 (1976–2012) VA 15 (2009–2026) CA 12 (1965–2025) OH 12 (2000–2026) KS 11 (1967–2023) MD 11 (1936–2022) NY 7 (1986–2017) MI 6 (1981–2003) NJ 6 (1989–2020) AZ 5 (1985–2015) IA 3 (2014–2016) RI 3 (2009–2011) IL 2 (2007–2007) UT 2 (2012–2015) CO 2 (1965–2005) CT 2 (1991–2008) AL 2 (2002–2011)

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