12-4413.
Municipal court diversion; definitions.
As used in K.S.A. 8-1009 and 12-4413 through 12-4418, and amendments thereto:
(a) "City attorney" means a city attorney of a city of this state.
(b) "Complaint" means complaint, citation or notice to appear in a municipal court.
(c) "Diversion" means referral of a defendant in a criminal case charging an alcohol related offense to a supervised performance program prior to adjudication.
(d) "Diversion agreement" means the specification of formal terms and conditions which a defendant must fulfill in order to have the charges against such person dismissed.
(e) "Alcohol related offense" means violation of an ordinance of a city of this state that prohibits the acts prohibited by K.S.A. 8-1567, and amendments thereto, or violation of such statute.
History:
L. 1982, ch. 144, § 12; L. 2012, ch. 172, § 22; L. 2018, ch. 106, § 16; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Petty v. City of El Dorado (2001)
kan · cites it 4×
“See K.S.A. 12-4413. *853 Inasmuch as no judgment of guilt is entered when diversion is granted, the district court was correct in finding that the municipal court judge had no authority to order Petty to a period of jail confinement as a condition of diversion.”
State v. Chamberlain (2005)
kan · cites it 3×
“22-2906(4); see K.S.A. 12-4413(d). “No defendant shall be required to enter any plea to a criminal charge as a condition for diversion.”
State v. Tims (2015)
kan
“3d 167 (2001); see K.S.A. 12-4413(c) and (d). If the defendant fails to fulfill the terms of the diversion agreement (as determined at a hearing before the municipal court), then the diversion agreement is revoked and criminal proceedings are resumed.”
State v. Reves (1983)
kan
“Section 12 (now K.S.A. 12-4413) defines the terms used in Sections 11 to 18.”
State v. Kihega (2024)
kanctapp
“For the purpose of this subsection, entering into a diversion agreement pursuant to K.S.A. 12-4413 et seq. or 22-2906 et. seq.”
Vogt v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue (2026)
kanctapp
“Because the diversion agreement did not 4 satisfy the first requirement, the court reasoned, the KDOR could not suspend Vogt's CDL.”
— K.S.A. § 12-4413(c) — 4 cases
Petty v. City of El Dorado (2001)
kan
“See K.S.A. 12-4413. *853 Inasmuch as no judgment of guilt is entered when diversion is granted, the district court was correct in finding that the municipal court judge had no authority to order Petty to a period of jail confinement as a condition of diversion.”
State v. Chamberlain (2005)
kan
“22-2906(4); see K.S.A. 12-4413(d). “No defendant shall be required to enter any plea to a criminal charge as a condition for diversion.”
State v. Tims (2015)
kan
“3d 167 (2001); see K.S.A. 12-4413(c) and (d). If the defendant fails to fulfill the terms of the diversion agreement (as determined at a hearing before the municipal court), then the diversion agreement is revoked and criminal proceedings are resumed.”
Vogt v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue (2026)
kanctapp
“Because the diversion agreement did not 4 satisfy the first requirement, the court reasoned, the KDOR could not suspend Vogt's CDL.”
— K.S.A. § 12-4413(d) — 2 cases
Petty v. City of El Dorado (2001)
kan
“See K.S.A. 12-4413. *853 Inasmuch as no judgment of guilt is entered when diversion is granted, the district court was correct in finding that the municipal court judge had no authority to order Petty to a period of jail confinement as a condition of diversion.”
State v. Chamberlain (2005)
kan
“22-2906(4); see K.S.A. 12-4413(d). “No defendant shall be required to enter any plea to a criminal charge as a condition for diversion.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.