transcript of the sentencing hearing in Kansas

2022Furthermore, it is the defendant's evidentiary burden to show "that the district judge failed to communicate one or more of these three pieces of information at sentencing" and "demonstrate deficiency from the transcript of the sentencing hearing." 287 Kan. at 220 .

2008“The evidentiary burden of showing that the district judge failed to communicate one or more of these three pieces of information at sentencing is on the defendant, who must demonstrate deficiency from the transcript of the sentencing hearing.” Patton, 287 Kan. at 220 .

2015The State also cites this court to State v. Hines, 296 Kan. 608 , 294 P.3d 270 (2013), for support of what must be understood as its argument *251 that the parole eligibility disparity relied upon at least in part by the district judge can never be part of the departure calculus.

2015The State also cites this court to State v. Hines, 296 Kan. 608 , 294 P.3d 270 (2013), for support of what must be understood as its argument *251 that the parole eligibility disparity relied upon at least in part by the district judge can never be part of the departure calculus.

2013While the transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the district court imposed, “lifetime parole with electronic monitoring,” tire journal entry of sentencing indicates lifetime post-release supervision. ■ ■ Discussion Alternative Means “Issues of statutory interpretation and construction, including issues of whether a statute creates alternative means, raise questions of law reviewable de novo on appeal.” State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181, 193-94 , 284 P.3d 977 (2012).

2013While the transcript of the sentencing hearing reflects that the district court imposed, “lifetime parole with electronic monitoring,” tire journal entry of sentencing indicates lifetime post-release supervision. ■ ■ Discussion Alternative Means “Issues of statutory interpretation and construction, including issues of whether a statute creates alternative means, raise questions of law reviewable de novo on appeal.” State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181, 193-94 , 284 P.3d 977 (2012).

2008Motion to Withdraw Pleas On April 21, 2004, Hemphill filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas in both Reno County cases, claiming that his pleas should be set aside in light of this court’s decision in State v. McAdam, 277 Kan. 136 , 83 P.3d 161 (2004), which was decided in January 2004.

2008Motion to Withdraw Pleas On April 21, 2004, Hemphill filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas in both Reno County cases, claiming that his pleas should be set aside in light of this court’s decision in State v. McAdam, 277 Kan. 136 , 83 P.3d 161 (2004), which was decided in January 2004.

1991Our Supreme Court has stated: “[W]hen the sentence exceeds the statutory minimum, it is the better practice for the sentencing court to place on the record a detailed statement of the facts and factors it considered.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Bennett, 240 Kan. 575, 578 , 731 P.2d 284 (1987).

1991Our Supreme Court has stated: “[W]hen the sentence exceeds the statutory minimum, it is the better practice for the sentencing court to place on the record a detailed statement of the facts and factors it considered.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Bennett, 240 Kan. 575, 578 , 731 P.2d 284 (1987).