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.
9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 1 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. Duncangreen2 sentences2026It added that the district court had not informed Duncan at his plea hearing of his jury trial right to determine the existence of aggravating factors. 291 Kan. at 472-73 . 2015It acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court and our statutes permit a defendant to waive the right to a jury determination on the existence of aggravating factors. 291 Kan. at 471-72 ; see Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 310 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sotogreen2 sentences2018Subsequently, in State v. Soto , 299 Kan. 102 , 124, 322 P.3d 334 (2014), this court held that in light of Alleyne 's holding, K.S.A. 21-4635's procedure for imposing a hard 50 sentence violates the Sixth Amendment by permitting a judge to make the fact-finding necessary to impose an increased mandatory minimum sentence, rather than requiring a jury to find the existence of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. 2018Subsequently, in State v. Soto , 299 Kan. 102 , 124, 322 P.3d 334 (2014), this court held that in light of Alleyne 's holding, K.S.A. 21-4635's procedure for imposing a hard 50 sentence violates the Sixth Amendment by permitting a judge to make the fact-finding necessary to impose an increased mandatory minimum sentence, rather than requiring a jury to find the existence of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bernhardtgreen2 sentences2017See L. 2013, ch. 1; see generally State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460, 478 , 372 P.3d 1161 (2016) (discussing the statutory amendments adopted during the 2013 special session and the legislative history). 2017See L. 2013, ch. 1; see generally State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460, 478 , 372 P.3d 1161 (2016) (discussing the statutory amendments adopted during the 2013 special session and the legislative history). | 1 | 1 |
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2015It acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court and our statutes permit a defendant to waive the right to a jury determination on the existence of aggravating factors. 291 Kan. at 471-72 ; see Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 310 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L. 2015It acknowledged that the United States Supreme Court and our statutes permit a defendant to waive the right to a jury determination on the existence of aggravating factors. 291 Kan. at 471-72 ; see Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 310 , 124 S. Ct. 2531 , 159 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alleyne v. United States
green
2 sentences2017We affirm Mattox's convictions; however, we vacate Mattox's hard 50 sentence and remand for resentencing because the district court, rather than the jury, found the existence of aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ , 133 S. Ct. 2151 , 186 L. 2017We affirm Mattox's convictions; however, we vacate Mattox's hard 50 sentence and remand for resentencing because the district court, rather than the jury, found the existence of aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ , 133 S. Ct. 2151 , 186 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Reed
green
2 sentences2009However, as Martinez notes, this issue has been disposed of adversely to him in State v. Reed, 282 Kan. 272, 282 , 144 P.3d 677 (2006), and he does not present any grounds for reconsidering Reed . 2009However, as Martinez notes, this issue has been disposed of adversely to him in State v. Reed, 282 Kan. 272, 282 , 144 P.3d 677 (2006), and he does not present any grounds for reconsidering Reed . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Gould
green
2 sentences2004During the time interval between State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394 , 23 P.3d 801 (2001), and the 2002 amendments to K.S.A. 21-4716, did the district court have authority to impose an upward durational departure sentence if a jury found the existence of aggravating factors? 3. 2004During the time interval between State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394 , 23 P.3d 801 (2001), and the 2002 amendments to K.S.A. 21-4716, did the district court have authority to impose an upward durational departure sentence if a jury found the existence of aggravating factors? 3. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Alford
green
2 sentences1998State v. Alford, 257 Kan. 830, 838 , 896 P.2d 1059 (1995). 1998State v. Alford, 257 Kan. 830, 838 , 896 P.2d 1059 (1995). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.