47 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gagnon v. Scarpellired2 sentences2015See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 93 S. Ct. 1756 , 36 L. 2015See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 , 93 S. Ct. 1756 , 36 L. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Colemangreen2 sentences2021See State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332 , 336-37, 460 P.3d 828 (2020) (holding trial court may revoke probationer's probation without imposing intermediate sanctions if probation was granted as dispositional departure only if probationer's offenses or crimes of conviction occurred on or after July 1, 2017). 2020See State v. Coleman, 311 Kan. 332 , 337, 460 P.3d 828 (2020). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Yuragreen2 sentences2021When hearsay is offered as the only evidence of the alleged violation, the 15 indicia of reliability must be substantial."); State v. Yura, 250 Kan. 198, 208 , 825 P.2d 523 (1992) (adopting a two-part test for finding whether hearsay evidence at a probation revocation hearing meets minimum due process, requiring an explanation as to why confrontation was undesirable or impractical and the reliability of the evidence). 2021When hearsay is offered as the only evidence of the alleged violation, the 15 indicia of reliability must be substantial."); State v. Yura, 250 Kan. 198, 208 , 825 P.2d 523 (1992) (adopting a two-part test for finding whether hearsay evidence at a probation revocation hearing meets minimum due process, requiring an explanation as to why confrontation was undesirable or impractical and the reliability of the evidence). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Billingsgreen2 sentences2025"Revocation of probation is not part of a criminal prosecution and, therefore, the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal case is not applicable to a probation revocation proceeding." State v. Billings, 30 Kan. 2024Another panel of this court denied the necessity of similar requirements in State v. Billings, 30 Kan. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Hallgreen2 sentences2022To resolve the issue, the Kansas Supreme Court determined it needed to answer two questions: "(1) Does the State waive a probation violation if it lodges a detainer but does not conduct a probation revocation hearing while the probationer is imprisoned on an unrelated felony conviction arising in another county" and (2) if not, what standard applies to determine whether the delay violated an alleged probation violator's due process? 287 Kan. at 140 . 2011See State v. Hall, 287 Kan. 139, 143 , 195 P.3d 220 (2008). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Bruce Bellgreen2 sentences2020This two-part test to determine whether "good cause" exists to admit evidence without confrontation examines: "(1) the explanation the State offers for why confrontation is undesirable or impractical, and (2) the reliability of the evidence which the State offers in place of live testimony." Yura, 250 Kan. 198 , Syl. ¶ 4 (adopting the test from United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640, 642-43 [8th Cir. 1986]). 1995The Eighth Circuit, relying on United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640 , found that admitting such reports without foundation was not a violation of a defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses. 866 F.2d at 1059 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., State v. Miller, 20 Kan. 1998App. 2d 378, 386 , 888 P.2d 399 (1995), where the court held that absent good cause, it was error to use affidavits and not to have live testimony in a probation revocation hearing. | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2024Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2024Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Staffordgreen1 sentence2019See Stafford , 296 Kan. at 45 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ballardgreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., State v. Ballard, 289 Kan. 1000, 1010-11 , 218 P.3d 432 (2009). 2011See, e.g., State v. Ballard, 289 Kan. 1000, 1010-11 , 218 P.3d 432 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cronicgreen2 sentences2009Deprived of counsel when tried, convicted, and sentenced, and unable to challenge the original judgment at a subsequent probation revocation hearing, a defendant in Shelton’s circumstances faces incarceration on a conviction that has never been subjected to ‘the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing,’ United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656 [, 80 L. 2009Deprived of counsel when tried, convicted, and sentenced, and unable to challenge the original judgment at a subsequent probation revocation hearing, a defendant in Shelton’s circumstances faces incarceration on a conviction that has never been subjected to ‘the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing,’ United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656 [, 80 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Bagby v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Travisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. John Bazzanogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stanley v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. William Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. James Bentley Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Jess Farmergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Thomas Fredericksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Perlie Donald Workmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| U. S. Ex Rel. Lombardino v. Heydgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Stuart G. MacKenziegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McKnight
green
2 sentences2018Jones relies on State v. McKnight , 292 Kan. 776 , 257 P.3d 339 (2011), to support her claim that her postrelease supervision term was modified and vacated at the probation revocation hearing. 2018Jones relies on State v. McKnight , 292 Kan. 776 , 257 P.3d 339 (2011), to support her claim that her postrelease supervision term was modified and vacated at the probation revocation hearing. | 2 | 2012–2018 |
State v. Cisneros
green
2 sentences2013At the probation-revocation hearing, the defendant asked the district court to enter a lesser sentence, but the judge said that was ‘not within my power here.’ 42 Kan. 2012At the probation-revocation hearing, the defendant asked the district court to enter a lesser sentence, but the judge said that was “not within my power here.” 42 Kan. | 2 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2001The Miller court concluded K.S.A. 21-3814 did not apply to defendant’s failure to appear for a probation revocation hearing. 15 Kan. 2001The court also noted that because a probation revocation hearing is a quasi-civil procedure, failure to appear at such a hearing is not a criminal offense and, therefore, does not meet the statutory requirement of an underlying felony charge for which defendant failed to appear. 15 Kan. | 2 | 1995–2001 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences1995In its analysis, the Kansas Supreme Court relied on Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 33 L. 1995In its analysis, the Kansas Supreme Court relied on Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 33 L. | 2 | 1983–1995 |
State v. Hurley
green
2 sentences2023But if a judicial error deprives a defendant of constitutional due process protections in a probation revocation hearing, the State must persuade the reviewing appellate court "beyond a reasonable doubt" that there was "no reasonable possibility the error affected the outcome." State v. Hurley, 303 Kan. 575 , Syl. ¶ 4, 363 P.3d 1095 (2016). 2023But if a judicial error deprives a defendant of constitutional due process protections in a probation revocation hearing, the State must persuade the reviewing appellate court "beyond a reasonable doubt" that there was "no reasonable possibility the error affected the outcome." State v. Hurley, 303 Kan. 575 , Syl. ¶ 4, 363 P.3d 1095 (2016). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Skolaut
green
2 sentences2022State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227 , 182 P.3d 1231 (2008). 2022State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227 , 182 P.3d 1231 (2008). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Ardry
green
2 sentences2022The Kansas Supreme Court granted review and noted "Ardry argues that the district court abused its discretion at the probation revocation hearing by imposing the original sentence because the court misunderstood the law and so did not properly consider the statutory limitations or legal standards for imposing a lesser sentence." 295 Kan. at 735 . 2022It noted that "the district court misstated the statutory requirements for imposing a lesser sentence in a revocation proceeding." 295 Kan. at 735 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Miller
neutral
1 sentence2022App. 2d 438 , 237 P.3d 1254 (2010), this court found reversible error when a district court failed to properly advise a defendant—who stated he would represent himself after he could not find an attorney—of his right to an attorney before allowing the defendant to proceed pro se at a probation revocation hearing. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Palmer
green
1 sentence2021Graham, 272 Kan. at 6 ; see State v. Yura, 250 Kan. 198, 207-08 , 825 P.2d 523 (1992); State v. Palmer, 37 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Graham
green
1 sentence2021Graham, 272 Kan. at 6 ; see State v. Yura, 250 Kan. 198, 207-08 , 825 P.2d 523 (1992); State v. Palmer, 37 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2021We concluded that "the district court's silence on the postrelease term at a probation revocation hearing—even if 5 by mistake—constitutes a lawful lesser sentence that is effective when pronounced from the bench." 56 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Hirsh
green
1 sentence2021This court properly considers Benjamin's claim either because Benjamin's counsel preserved the issue by requesting sanctions at the probation revocation hearing, or because Benjamin's claim "'involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case.'" See State v. Hirsch, 310 Kan. 321 , 338, 446 P.3d 472 (2019) (explaining exceptions to the general rule prohibiting raising an issue for the first time on appeal). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Lloyd
green
1 sentence2021State v. Lloyd, 52 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Caruthers
neutral
1 sentence2021State v. Caruthers, 22 Kan. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Rocha
neutral
1 sentence2020The Rocha panel reversed the revocation by the district court, finding the delay was unreasonable and unduly prejudicial. 30 Kan. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Marquis
green
1 sentence2020Our Supreme Court has adopted a test for finding whether "hearsay evidence at a probation revocation hearing comports with minimum due process." Marquis, 292 Kan. at 932 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Sandoval
green
1 sentence2018On review, our Supreme Court found that the district court specifically rejected a sentence modification at the probation revocation hearing and reinstated the original illegal sentence, so the district court was authorized to correct the illegal sentence and impose lifetime postrelease supervision. 308 Kan. at 965 , 425 P.3d 365 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Jackson
neutral
2 sentences2016Cf. State v. Jackson, 234 Kan. 84, 88 , 670 P.2d 1327 (1983) (remanding for new probation revocation hearing where defendant denied tire right to present witness at original hearing). 2016Cf. State v. Jackson, 234 Kan. 84, 88 , 670 P.2d 1327 (1983) (remanding for new probation revocation hearing where defendant denied tire right to present witness at original hearing). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Bishop
neutral
1 sentence2011Bishop, 2009 WL 744193, at *1 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Unwitting Victim v. C.S. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert M. SILVER, Defendant-Appellant green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Louk v. Haynes green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Paul Darke Cornwell, II green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Richard Forgues v. United States green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Cook v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Ronald Skipworth v. United States green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Lester Henry Carey green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Albert v. United States green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Duncan v. United States green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Carey green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| In re Fernandez green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Krzykowski green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| United States v. Barbara Lynn Burton green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| United States v. Linda Gail Finney green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| United States v. William Gordon Winsett green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Turner green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Aldape green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Jameson green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.