offense violation in Kansas

2006The reason multiplicity must be considered is that it creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of tire Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.” State v. Robbins, 272 Kan. 158, 171 , 32 P.3d 171 (2001).

2006The reason multiplicity must be considered is that it creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of tire Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.” State v. Robbins, 272 Kan. 158, 171 , 32 P.3d 171 (2001).

2026The Sandberg court explained that the identical offense doctrine applies when there are two separate statutory crimes that each contain exactly the same legal elements but have different penalties. 290 Kan. at 984-85 ; see State v. Snellings, 294 Kan. 149, 151 , 273 P.3d 739 (2012).

2014State v. Sandberg, 290 Kan. 980, 984 , 235 P.3d 476 (2010).

2025State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , 338, 446 P.3d 472 (2019). "[M]ultiplicity is the charging of a single offense in several counts of a complaint or information." State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238, 244 , 200 P.3d 22 (2009). "'The reason multiplicity must be considered is that it creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 475 , 133 P.3d 48 (2006).

2025State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , 338, 446 P.3d 472 (2019). "[M]ultiplicity is the charging of a single offense in several counts of a complaint or information." State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238, 244 , 200 P.3d 22 (2009). "'The reason multiplicity must be considered is that it creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 475 , 133 P.3d 48 (2006).

2008Finally, the court stated the “governing principle of the identical offense doctrine” as: “ “Where two criminal offenses have identical elements but are classified differently for purposes of imposing a penalty, a defendant convicted of either crime may be sentenced only under the lesser penalty provision.’ ” 285 Kan. at 966 -67 (quoting State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207, 229 , 768 P.2d 268 [1989]).

2008Finally, the court stated the “governing principle of the identical offense doctrine” as: “ “Where two criminal offenses have identical elements but are classified differently for purposes of imposing a penalty, a defendant convicted of either crime may be sentenced only under the lesser penalty provision.’ ” 285 Kan. at 966 -67 (quoting State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207, 229 , 768 P.2d 268 [1989]).

2025When a defendant is convicted of multiple violations of the same statute, we determine whether a conviction is multiplicitous by using a "well-established two-part test." State v. Alston, 318 Kan. 979 , 983, 551 P.3d 116 (2024) (citing Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453 , Syl. ¶ 1).

2025Whether a conviction is multiplicitous, where the defendant is convicted of multiple violations of the same statute, is determined in Kansas by a "well-established two-part test." State v. Alston, 318 Kan. 979 , 983, 551 P.3d 116 (2024) (citing Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453 , Syl. ¶ 1).

2024Therefore, even if the sentences violate the identical offense doctrine, there can be no relief under K.S.A. 22-3504 because the sentences are not "illegal" under the 5 statute's definition of that word. 283 Kan. at 744 .

2008Harp “denied being informed of his appellate remedies, the steps necessary to implement an appeal, or the possibility of an appeal on the identical offense doctrine.” 283 Kan. at 747 .

2021The identical offense doctrine can apply when either 12 "some provisions in two statutes overlap, the overlapping provisions apply to the charged crime, and the overlapping provisions are identical except for the penalty provisions" or when "all provisions in two statutes are identical except for the penalty provisions." Williams, 299 Kan. at 926 (quoting Snellings, 294 Kan. at 152 ).

2021There, we considered the defendant's claim under both the identical offense doctrine and the more specific statute "rule." But again, we noted that the more specific crime rule is actually not a legal rule at all but rather a "'rule of interpretation . . . used to determine which statute the legislature intended to be applied in a particular case.'" 299 Kan. at 930 (quoting Helms, 242 Kan. at 514 ); see also State v. Cott, 288 Kan. 643 , Syl. ¶ 2, 206 P.3d 514 (2009) ("The rule that a general statute should yield to a specific statute covering the same criminal conduct is a rule of statutory c

2021There, we considered the defendant's claim under both the identical offense doctrine and the more specific statute "rule." But again, we noted that the more specific crime rule is actually not a legal rule at all but rather a "'rule of interpretation . . . used to determine which statute the legislature intended to be applied in a particular case.'" 299 Kan. at 930 (quoting Helms, 242 Kan. at 514 ); see also State v. Cott, 288 Kan. 643 , Syl. ¶ 2, 206 P.3d 514 (2009) ("The rule that a general statute should yield to a specific statute covering the same criminal conduct is a rule of statutory c

2021There, we considered the defendant's claim under both the identical offense doctrine and the more specific statute "rule." But again, we noted that the more specific crime rule is actually not a legal rule at all but rather a "'rule of interpretation . . . used to determine which statute the legislature intended to be applied in a particular case.'" 299 Kan. at 930 (quoting Helms, 242 Kan. at 514 ); see also 8 State v. Cott, 288 Kan. 643 , Syl. ¶ 2, 206 P.3d 514 (2009) ("The rule that a general statute should yield to a specific statute covering the same criminal conduct is a rule of statutory

2011“The governing principle of the identical offense doctrine is: Where two criminal offenses have identical elements but are classified differently for purposes of imposing a penalty, a defendant convicted of either crime may be sentenced only under the lesser penalty provision.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Cooper, 285 Kan. 964, 966-67 , 179 P.3d 439 (2008).

2011“The governing principle of the identical offense doctrine is: Where two criminal offenses have identical elements but are classified differently for purposes of imposing a penalty, a defendant convicted of either crime may be sentenced only under the lesser penalty provision.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Cooper, 285 Kan. 964, 966-67 , 179 P.3d 439 (2008).

2008Our Supreme Court has *757 decided that the application of the identical offense rule, as set forth in State v. Frazier, 30 Kan.

2005He argues he should be resentenced under the identical offense doctrine as applied in State *396 v. Frazier, 30 Kan.

2026Multiplicity creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. [Citations omitted.]" State v. Sprung, 294 Kan. 300, 306 , 277 P.3d 1100 (2012).

2026Multiplicity creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. [Citations omitted.]" State v. Sprung, 294 Kan. 300, 306 , 277 P.3d 1100 (2012).

2025State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , 338, 446 P.3d 472 (2019). "[M]ultiplicity is the charging of a single offense in several counts of a complaint or information." State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238, 244 , 200 P.3d 22 (2009). "'The reason multiplicity must be considered is that it creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 475 , 133 P.3d 48 (2006).

2013Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1019 . (citing Sandberg, 290 Kan. at 988 ).

2012As the State points out, we rejected this same argument in State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 951 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (explaining that crimes of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder are not identical because first-degree premeditated murder requires the additional element of premeditation).

2012As the State points out, we rejected this same argument in State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 951 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (explaining that crimes of first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder are not identical because first-degree premeditated murder requires the additional element of premeditation).

2009Finally, Quinones asserts the district court erred in ordering her to pay BIDS attorney fees without considering her ability to pay or assessing a specific amount as required by K.S.A. 22-45I3(b) and State v. Robinson, 281 Kan. 538 , Syl. ¶ 1, 132 P.3d 934 (2006).

2009Finally, Quinones asserts the district court erred in ordering her to pay BIDS attorney fees without considering her ability to pay or assessing a specific amount as required by K.S.A. 22-45I3(b) and State v. Robinson, 281 Kan. 538 , Syl. ¶ 1, 132 P.3d 934 (2006).

2008For this reason and in accord with the reasoning and result of McAdam, Stevens may be sentenced only under the lesser penalty provision of K.S.A. 65-4161(a).” 278 Kan. at 456 . *968 In Fanning, 281 Kan. 1176 , we considered whether the identical offense doctrine applied to the offenses of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine.

2008These are: (1) it is difficult to discern legislative intent regarding the level of punishment when two statutes that proscribe the same conduct have identical elements but differing sentencing provisions (see Campbell, 279 Kan. at 16 ); and (2) identical crimes with differing penalties make the “ "the decision as to which penalty to seek ... a matter of prosecutorial whimsy in charging.’ ” Nunn, 244 Kan. at 229 (quoting State v. Clements, 241 Kan. 77, 83 , 734 P.2d 1096 [1987)]).

2007In Laymon v. State, 280 Kan. 430 , 122 P.3d 326 (2005), McAdam’s ADO counsel argued the identical offense doctrine while Laymon’s ADO counsel did not, even though both cases were in the ADO at overlapping periods of time.

2007In Laymon v. State, 280 Kan. 430 , 122 P.3d 326 (2005), McAdam’s ADO counsel argued the identical offense doctrine while Laymon’s ADO counsel did not, even though both cases were in the ADO at overlapping periods of time.

2006The reason multiplicity must be considered is that it creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.’ ” (Emphasis added.) 280 Kan. at 388 (quoting State v. Robbins, 272 Kan. 158, 171 , 32 P.3d 171 [2001]).

2006McAdam, 277 Kan. at 145-47 .

2005The reason multiplicity must be considered is that it creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.” ’ [Citation omitted.]” Groves, 278 Kan. at 304 .