sentence was imposed violation in Kansas

6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
– State v. Smith –green kan · 2020 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1507(a): "A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court of general jurisdiction claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States, or the constitution or laws of the state of Kansas, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may, pursuant to the time limitations imposed by subsection (f), move the court which imposed the sentence to vac	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Neer green kan · 1990 2 sentences 2001Further, the doctrine of res judicata stated in State v. Neer, 247 Kan. 137, 140-41 , 795 P.2d 362 (1990), does not act as a bar to a 60-1507 motion claiming the sentence was imposed in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause because, as held above, Whitesell cannot present his constitutional argument on direct appeal. 2001Further, the doctrine of res judicata stated in State v. Neer, 247 Kan. 137, 140-41 , 795 P.2d 362 (1990), does not act as a bar to a 60-1507 motion claiming the sentence was imposed in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause because, as held above, Whitesell cannot present his constitutional argument on direct appeal.	2	2000–2001
Alleyne v. United States green · 2013 2 sentences 2017A claim that a sentence was imposed in violation of the constitutional holding in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ , 133 S. Ct. 2151 , 186 L. 2017A claim that a sentence was imposed in violation of the constitutional holding in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___ , 133 S. Ct. 2151 , 186 L.	1	2017–2017
Johnson v. State green · 1968 2 sentences 2008Johnson v. State, 200 Kan. 708, 710 , 438 P.2d 96 (1968) (citing State v. Richardson, 194 Kan. 471, 472 , 399 P.2d 799 [1965]). 669 The district court here correctly noted the meaning of “in custody under sentence of a court” within both 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and K.S.A. 60-1507 has been broadly construed to mean any restraint of liberty imposed by court order following criminal proceedings. 2008Johnson v. State, 200 Kan. 708, 710 , 438 P.2d 96 (1968) (citing State v. Richardson, 194 Kan. 471, 472 , 399 P.2d 799 [1965]). 669 The district court here correctly noted the meaning of “in custody under sentence of a court” within both 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and K.S.A. 60-1507 has been broadly construed to mean any restraint of liberty imposed by court order following criminal proceedings.	1	2008–2008
State v. Richardson green kan · 1965 2 sentences 2008Johnson v. State, 200 Kan. 708, 710 , 438 P.2d 96 (1968) (citing State v. Richardson, 194 Kan. 471, 472 , 399 P.2d 799 [1965]). 669 The district court here correctly noted the meaning of “in custody under sentence of a court” within both 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and K.S.A. 60-1507 has been broadly construed to mean any restraint of liberty imposed by court order following criminal proceedings. 2008Johnson v. State, 200 Kan. 708, 710 , 438 P.2d 96 (1968) (citing State v. Richardson, 194 Kan. 471, 472 , 399 P.2d 799 [1965]). 669 The district court here correctly noted the meaning of “in custody under sentence of a court” within both 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and K.S.A. 60-1507 has been broadly construed to mean any restraint of liberty imposed by court order following criminal proceedings.	1	2008–2008
Apprendi v. New Jersey green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2001We note that in State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394 , 23 P.3d 801 (2001), the Supreme Court found K.S.A. 21-4716 unconstitutional as applied to upward departures pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L. 2001We note that in State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394 , 23 P.3d 801 (2001), the Supreme Court found K.S.A. 21-4716 unconstitutional as applied to upward departures pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L.	1	2001–2001
State v. Gould green kan · 2001 2 sentences 2001We note that in State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394 , 23 P.3d 801 (2001), the Supreme Court found K.S.A. 21-4716 unconstitutional as applied to upward departures pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L. 2001We note that in State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394 , 23 P.3d 801 (2001), the Supreme Court found K.S.A. 21-4716 unconstitutional as applied to upward departures pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L.	1	2001–2001
Cox v. State green kan · 1967 2 sentences 1975(Cox v. State, 200 Kan. 198 , 434 P. 2d 843 .) A prisoner in custody under the sentence of a court of general jurisdiction claiming the right to be released on the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of the State of Kansas, that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction, that the sentence was in excess of that allowed by law, or that the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court at any time to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 1975(Cox v. State, 200 Kan. 198 , 434 P. 2d 843 .) A prisoner in custody under the sentence of a court of general jurisdiction claiming the right to be released on the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of the State of Kansas, that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction, that the sentence was in excess of that allowed by law, or that the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court at any time to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.	1	1975–1975

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 60-1507 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

WI 13 (1972–2003) FL 11 (1965–2012) PA 10 (1985–2021) IL 7 (1999–2014) NM 7 (1967–2025) KS 6 (1975–2022) CO 6 (1986–2024) MT 6 (1994–2012) AR 6 (1972–2020) DC 5 (1974–1999) ND 4 (2016–2025) MS 4 (2010–2025) CA 2 (1986–2013) VT 2 (1969–2013) MD 2 (1974–2013)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check