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.
11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2025 6 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. Wetrichgreen2 sentences2024Under the Wetrich framework, an out-of-state offense is comparable to a Kansas crime if the elements of the out-of-state crime are "identical to, or narrower than, the elements of the Kansas crime to which it is being referenced." 307 Kan. at 562 . 2024Under the Wetrich framework, an out-of-state offense is comparable to a Kansas crime if the elements of the out-of-state crime are "identical to, or narrower than, the elements of the Kansas crime to which it is being referenced." 307 Kan. at 562 . | 2 | 5 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2020See Coleman, 2017 WL 1104789 , at *3 ("[W]hen examining prior conviction statutes, they need only be comparable, not identical.") (citing Williams, 299 Kan. at 873 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Obregongreen2 sentences2020See State v. Obregon, 309 Kan. 1267, 1271 , 444 P.3d 331 (2019) (applying Wetrich in a direct appeal sentencing case; reasoning "'a party may seek and obtain the benefit of a change in the law during the pendency of a direct appeal'"). (2) Was the classification correct for Coleman's sentences on the 2015 convictions? 2020See State v. Obregon, 309 Kan. 1267, 1271 , 444 P.3d 331 (2019) (applying Wetrich in a direct appeal sentencing case; reasoning "'a party may seek and obtain the benefit of a change in the law during the pendency of a direct appeal'"). (2) Was the classification correct for Coleman's sentences on the 2015 convictions? | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2019See State v. Brown , 295 Kan. 181 , 194, 284 P.3d 977 (2012). 2019See State v. Brown , 295 Kan. 181 , 194, 284 P.3d 977 (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. Vandervort
green
2 sentences2019Under Vandervort , the offenses need only be comparable, not identical. 276 Kan. at 179 , 72 P.3d 925 . 2019Under Vandervort , the offenses need only be comparable, not identical. 276 Kan. at 179 , 72 P.3d 925 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2022According to Moore, use of the Wetrich standard is required under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2022According to Moore, use of the Wetrich standard is required under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
– State v. Williams –
green
2 sentences2020See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) ("A sentence is not an 'illegal sentence' because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced."); State v. Weber, 309 Kan. 1203 , 1209, 442 P.3d 1044 (2019) (holding that Wetrich was a "change in the law"); State v. Williams, __ Kan. __, 456 P.3d 540 , 546-47 (2020) (applying Wetrich when a direct appeal was pending when Wetrich was decided). 4 Wetrich doesn't apply here. 2020See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) ("A sentence is not an 'illegal sentence' because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced."); State v. Weber, 309 Kan. 1203 , 1209, 442 P.3d 1044 (2019) (holding that Wetrich was a "change in the law"); State v. Williams, __ Kan. __, 456 P.3d 540 , 546-47 (2020) (applying Wetrich when a direct appeal was pending when Wetrich was decided). 4 Wetrich doesn't apply here. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Weber
green
2 sentences2020See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) ("A sentence is not an 'illegal sentence' because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced."); State v. Weber, 309 Kan. 1203 , 1209, 442 P.3d 1044 (2019) (holding that Wetrich was a "change in the law"); State v. Williams, __ Kan. __, 456 P.3d 540 , 546-47 (2020) (applying Wetrich when a direct appeal was pending when Wetrich was decided). 4 Wetrich doesn't apply here. 2020See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) ("A sentence is not an 'illegal sentence' because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced."); State v. Weber, 309 Kan. 1203 , 1209, 442 P.3d 1044 (2019) (holding that Wetrich was a "change in the law"); State v. Williams, __ Kan. __, 456 P.3d 540 , 546-47 (2020) (applying Wetrich when a direct appeal was pending when Wetrich was decided). 4 Wetrich doesn't apply here. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.