8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1986–1993 0 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. Harroldgreen2 sentences1992In State v. Harrold, 239 Kan. 645, 650 , 722 P.2d 563 (1986), we said, “A trial court’s failure to make a detailed statement of the factors considered by the court in imposing sentence does not necessarily, in and of itself, demonstrate an abuse of discretion; each case must be separately considered on its facts.” We have not considered what a trial court must do to comply with K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 21-4606b. 1992In State v. Harrold, 239 Kan. 645, 650 , 722 P.2d 563 (1986), we said, “A trial court’s failure to make a detailed statement of the factors considered by the court in imposing sentence does not necessarily, in and of itself, demonstrate an abuse of discretion; each case must be separately considered on its facts.” We have not considered what a trial court must do to comply with K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 21-4606b. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jennings
green
2 sentences1987Furthermore, “a trial court’s failure to make a detailed statement of the factors considered by the court in imposing sentence does not necessarily, in and of itself, constitute an abuse of discretion.” State v. Jennings, 240 Kan. 377, 381 , 729 P.2d 454 (1986). 1987Furthermore, “a trial court’s failure to make a detailed statement of the factors considered by the court in imposing sentence does not necessarily, in and of itself, constitute an abuse of discretion.” State v. Jennings, 240 Kan. 377, 381 , 729 P.2d 454 (1986). | 2 | 1987–1990 |
State v. Turner
green
1 sentence1993A court’s failure to make a detailed statement of these factors does not necessarily constitute an abuse of discretion, and each case is to be considered separately on its facts. 251 Kan. at 46 ; State v. Meyers, 245 Kan. 471, 479 , 781 P.2d 700 (1989). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Meyers
green
2 sentences1993A court’s failure to make a detailed statement of these factors does not necessarily constitute an abuse of discretion, and each case is to be considered separately on its facts. 251 Kan. at 46 ; State v. Meyers, 245 Kan. 471, 479 , 781 P.2d 700 (1989). 1993A court’s failure to make a detailed statement of these factors does not necessarily constitute an abuse of discretion, and each case is to be considered separately on its facts. 251 Kan. at 46 ; State v. Meyers, 245 Kan. 471, 479 , 781 P.2d 700 (1989). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Buckner
green
2 sentences1988We held in State v. Buckner, 223 Kan. 138 , 574 P.2d 918 (1977), that, when a sentence exceeds the statutory minimum, a court is well advised to give a detailed statement of those factors considered by the court in order to aid the appellate court in determining whether discretion was abused. 1988We held in State v. Buckner, 223 Kan. 138 , 574 P.2d 918 (1977), that, when a sentence exceeds the statutory minimum, a court is well advised to give a detailed statement of those factors considered by the court in order to aid the appellate court in determining whether discretion was abused. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Richard
green
2 sentences1986In the more recent case of State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355, 366 , 681 P.2d 612 (1984), we said. 1986In the more recent case of State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355, 366 , 681 P.2d 612 (1984), we said. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Riggins
green
2 sentences1986Such a record would be of great assistance to the appellate courts in determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion. `Absent a statement of reasons, the record will not reveal whether the legislatively mandated factors have been considered.' Commonwealth v. Riggins, [ 474 Pa. 115 , 377 A.2d 140 (1977)]." A trial court's failure to make a detailed statement of the factors considered by the court in imposing sentence does not necessarily, in and of itself, demonstrate an abuse of discretion; each case must be separately considered on its facts. 1986Such a record would be of great assistance to the appellate courts in determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion. `Absent a statement of reasons, the record will not reveal whether the legislatively mandated factors have been considered.' Commonwealth v. Riggins, [ 474 Pa. 115 , 377 A.2d 140 (1977)]." A trial court's failure to make a detailed statement of the factors considered by the court in imposing sentence does not necessarily, in and of itself, demonstrate an abuse of discretion; each case must be separately considered on its facts. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.