K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-3715 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-3715.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3715; L. 1989, ch. 92, § 21; L. 1991, ch. 33, § 28; L. 1992, ch. 298, § 44; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 74; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 218 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: State v. Storey, 179 P.3d 1137 (Kan. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Storey, 179 P.3d 1137 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 33× “The issue at trial was whether an unfinished medical center was covered by the burglary statute, K.S.A. 21-3715. Storey argued that he could not be convicted of burglary because no barriers existed to prevent him from entering.”
State v. Wetrich, 412 P.3d 984 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 4× “170 (1986), with the Kansas burglary statute in effect when Wetrich committed his current crime of conviction in 2009, K.S.A. 21-3715. It found that the Missouri statutory definition of "inhabitable structure" was broader than the K.”
State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 5× “See K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 21-3715. Thus, determining whether Dickey’s prior burglary involved a dwelling would necessarily involve judicial factfinding that goes beyond merely finding the existence of a prior conviction or the statutory elements constituting that prior conviction.”
State v. Obregon, 444 P.3d 331 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 3× “Similarly, Moore also implicitly recognized this because it could have resolved the comparison between the earlier Kansas burglary statute, K.S.A. 21-3715, and an Oregon burglary statute on the grounds that the Oregon statute criminalized entering or remaining in a dwelling, a…”
State v. Reed, 663 P.2d 680 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 10× “Defendants' argument raises two related questions: first, does the crime of aggravated burglary require proof that the victim was present in the structure at the time it was entered and second, was the charge in this case sufficient? The statutes defining burglary and aggravated…”
United States v. Forrest, 611 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “to Attempted Burglary, in violation o[f] K.S.A. 21-3715 and K.S.A. 21-3301” and to dismiss the remaining counts; Forrest entered a plea of guilty to Count I as amended; and the Court found him guilty of “Count I as amended, Attempted Burglary, in violation o[f] K.”
State v. Dickey, 329 P.3d 1230 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “” K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 21-3715. In 1993, the legislature adopted the KSGA, which classified burglaries as either person or nonperson crimes.”
State v. Moler, 2 P.3d 773 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 8× “Moler appeals his jury trial conviction of burglary (K.S.A. 21-3715[b]), a severity level 7, nonperson felony.”
State v. Potts, 374 P.3d 639 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 2× “1038 (2002), but he argues that the court’s reasoning for doing so ignored the language of K.S.A. 21-3715(c), the predecessor to K.S.”
State v. Gales, 476 P.3d 412 (Kan. 2020). · cites it 4× “"(d) Prior burglary adult convictions and juvenile adjudications will be scored for criminal history purposes as follows: (1) As a prior person felony if the prior conviction or adjudication was classified as a burglary as described in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 21-3715 and…”
United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399 (2018). “1 (1985); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-3715 , 21-3716 (1988) (effective 1970); La.”
State v. Zimmerman & Schmidt, 660 P.2d 960 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 5× “Zimmerman and Philip Mark Schmidt (defendants-appellees) with burglary (K.S.A. 21-3715). At the close of the preliminary hearing the district court ruled the element of entry had not been shown by the State and ordered that the charge be dismissed.”
Show all 218 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-3715(1) — 3 cases
State v. Roderick, 911 P.2d 159 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Heffelman, 886 P.2d 823 (Kan. 1994).
State v. Shelton, 845 P.2d 23 (Kan. 1993).
— K.S.A. § 21-3715(2) — 1 case
State v. Jacobson, 860 P.2d 47 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
— K.S.A. § 21-3715(a) — 30 cases
State v. Storey, 179 P.3d 1137 (Kan. 2008). “The issue at trial was whether an unfinished medical center was covered by the burglary statute, K.S.A. 21-3715. Storey argued that he could not be convicted of burglary because no barriers existed to prevent him from entering.”
State v. Wetrich, 412 P.3d 984 (Kan. 2018). “170 (1986), with the Kansas burglary statute in effect when Wetrich committed his current crime of conviction in 2009, K.S.A. 21-3715. It found that the Missouri statutory definition of "inhabitable structure" was broader than the K.”
State v. Obregon, 444 P.3d 331 (Kan. 2019). “Similarly, Moore also implicitly recognized this because it could have resolved the comparison between the earlier Kansas burglary statute, K.S.A. 21-3715, and an Oregon burglary statute on the grounds that the Oregon statute criminalized entering or remaining in a dwelling, a…”
State v. Alvis, 53 P.3d 1232 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Lyon, 471 P.3d 716 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 21-3715(b) — 14 cases
State v. Storey, 179 P.3d 1137 (Kan. 2008). “The issue at trial was whether an unfinished medical center was covered by the burglary statute, K.S.A. 21-3715. Storey argued that he could not be convicted of burglary because no barriers existed to prevent him from entering.”
State v. Storey, 154 P.3d 1148 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
United States v. Forrest, 611 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2010). “to Attempted Burglary, in violation o[f] K.S.A. 21-3715 and K.S.A. 21-3301” and to dismiss the remaining counts; Forrest entered a plea of guilty to Count I as amended; and the Court found him guilty of “Count I as amended, Attempted Burglary, in violation o[f] K.”
State v. Moler, 2 P.3d 773 (Kan. 2000). “Moler appeals his jury trial conviction of burglary (K.S.A. 21-3715[b]), a severity level 7, nonperson felony.”
State v. Alvis, 53 P.3d 1232 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
— K.S.A. § 21-3715(c) — 9 cases
State v. Potts, 374 P.3d 639 (Kan. 2016). “1038 (2002), but he argues that the court’s reasoning for doing so ignored the language of K.S.A. 21-3715(c), the predecessor to K.S.”
State v. Longoria, 343 P.3d 1128 (Kan. 2015).
State v. Pruitt, 211 P.3d 166 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. McKissack, 156 P.3d 1249 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Williams, 153 P.3d 566 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
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.