probation revocation hearing in Kansas

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.

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.

2013At 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.

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.

2001The Miller court concluded K.S.A. 21-3814 did not apply to defendant’s failure to appear for a probation revocation hearing. 15 Kan.

1995In 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.

2026Accordingly, we hold that the defendant waived his right to assert reversible error on the ground that the State failed to establish a probation violation because it relied solely on inadmissible hearsay evidence, because he introduced testimony that clearly proved such a violation by a preponderance of the evidence." Carter, 5 Kan. App. 2d at 207-08 .

2026The third Ortiz exception focuses on whether the defendant's lawyer performed "up to a minimum constitutional standard once that assignment is made." State v. Patton, 287 6 Kan. 200, 223-24 , 195 P.3d 753 (2008).

2025State v. Reeves, 54 Kan.

2024Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643 , 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875, 882 , 335 P.3d 1162 (2014); see Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance).

2024Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643 , 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875, 882 , 335 P.3d 1162 (2014); see Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance).

2024Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643 , 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875, 882 , 335 P.3d 1162 (2014); see Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance).

2024Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643 , 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875, 882 , 335 P.3d 1162 (2014); see Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance).

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).

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).

2022State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227 , 182 P.3d 1231 (2008).

2022State v. Skolaut, 286 Kan. 219, 227 , 182 P.3d 1231 (2008).

2022While Solton insisted on representing himself several times throughout the trial process and claimed to have previously represented himself, the record has no explicit waiver of his right to counsel, let alone a knowing and intelligent waiver, until the pretrial conference. 11 In somewhat similar circumstances in State v. Miller, 44 Kan. App. 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 defendan

2022While Solton insisted on representing himself several times throughout the trial process and claimed to have previously represented himself, the record has no explicit waiver of his right to counsel, let alone a knowing and intelligent waiver, until the pretrial conference. 11 In somewhat similar circumstances in State v. Miller, 44 Kan. App. 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 defendan

2022It noted that "the district court misstated the statutory requirements for imposing a lesser sentence in a revocation proceeding." 295 Kan. at 735 .

2022The 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 .

2021Mich. 15 2020) (holding that conducting a bench trial by videoconference did not violate due process rights); Clarington v. State, 314 So.3d 495 , 509 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) (holding that conducting a probation revocation hearing over Zoom did not violate due process); In re Smith, No. 355077, 2021 WL 2769825 , at *4 (Mich. App. 2021) (unpublished opinion) (holding that conducting a termination of parental rights hearing over Zoom did not violate due process); In re P.S., No. 5-21-0027, 2021 WL 3141203 , at *14 (Ill. App. 2021) (unpublished opinion) (holding that conducting a termination o

2021Graham, 272 Kan. at 6 ; see State v. Yura, 250 Kan. 198, 207-08 , 825 P.2d 523 (1992); State v. Palmer, 37 Kan. App. 2d 819 , 825- 26, 158 P.3d 363 (2007).

2021Graham, 272 Kan. at 6 ; see State v. Yura, 250 Kan. 198, 207-08 , 825 P.2d 523 (1992); State v. Palmer, 37 Kan. App. 2d 819 , 825- 26, 158 P.3d 363 (2007).

2021Graham, 272 Kan. at 6 ; see State v. Yura, 250 Kan. 198, 207-08 , 825 P.2d 523 (1992); State v. Palmer, 37 Kan. App. 2d 819 , 825- 26, 158 P.3d 363 (2007).

2021We 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. App. 2d at 566 .

2021This 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).

2021This 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).

2021State v. Caruthers, 22 Kan.