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

K.S.A. § 21-4504 (2026)

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

21-4504.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4504; L. 1970, ch. 124, § 10; L. 1973, ch. 141, § 1; L. 1978, ch. 120, § 4; L. 1982, ch. 137, § 2; L. 1989, ch. 92, § 23; L. 1990, ch. 100, § 4; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 235; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 180; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 130 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Cooper v. Werholtz, 83 P.3d 1212 (Kan. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cooper v. Werholtz, 83 P.3d 1212 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 8× “; In 1988, Manford Cooper was convicted of a single class A felony and received a life sentence, which was tripled pursuant to the Habitual Criminal Act, K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4504. The Department of Corrections (DOC) informed Cooper, an inmate at the Lansing Correctional…”
State v. Mitchell, 162 P.3d 18 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 7× “In addition, Mitchell argues that his sentences are illegal because K.S.A. 21-4504 (Ensley 1988) does not authorize consecutive sentences.”
State v. Grissom, 840 P.2d 1142 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 6× “The trial court was within its authority and discretion to order the life sentences to run consecutively.”
State v. Paul, 175 P.3d 840 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 5× “Paul attempts to create ambiguity not by pointing to the language of K.S.A.”
State v. Greever, 878 P.2d 838 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 26× “21-3710(a)(2), and the trial court enhanced his sentence under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4504(c). He appeals, contending that the court erred by enhancing his sentence under 21-4504(c) and by not reciting the specific findings upon which the enhanced sentence was based and that K.”
State v. Mayberry, 807 P.2d 86 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 6× “Subsequent to commission of the crimes, but prior to the trial and sentencing of Mayberry, K.”
State v. Osoba, 672 P.2d 1098 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 10× “The court denied the motion and sentenced her as a second offender, imposing a $500 fine and ninety days in the county jail plus costs.”
State v. Buckner, 574 P.2d 918 (Kan. 1977). · cites it 4× “In the instant case, the trial court, on motion of the state, *146 invoked the Habitual Criminal Act, K.S.A. 21-4504. Appellant, having been convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery, was sentenced to the maximum of thirty years to life on each count all to run…”
State v. Wilson, 634 P.2d 1078 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 5× “They were enhanced under the habitual criminal act (K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 21-4504[2]). The State’s evidence introduced in support of sentence enhancement establishes that on August 10, 1977, defendant was convicted in the Barton County District Court on a charge of felony theft…”
State v. Crichton, 766 P.2d 832 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “: Dan Crichton appeals from the district court’s decision to enhance his sentence under the Habitual Criminal Act (K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-4504) and from the court’s decision to overrule Crichton’s motion for judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Walker, 89 P.3d 920 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 5× “The district court acknowledged that there were two journal entries for these convictions and found the Habitual Criminal Act applicable.”
State v. Hankins, 880 P.2d 271 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “The district court’s finding that K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4504 allowed it to enhance Hankins’ sentence using the prior offenses is a question of law.”
Show all 130 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(1) — 2 cases
State v. Rinck, 923 P.2d 67 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Hollingsworth, 691 P.2d 392 (Kan. 1984).
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(2) — 12 cases
State v. Paul, 175 P.3d 840 (Kan. 2008). “Paul attempts to create ambiguity not by pointing to the language of K.S.A.”
State v. Grissom, 840 P.2d 1142 (Kan. 1992). “The trial court was within its authority and discretion to order the life sentences to run consecutively.”
State v. Murrell, 585 P.2d 1017 (Kan. 1978).
State v. Wilson, 634 P.2d 1078 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981). “They were enhanced under the habitual criminal act (K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 21-4504[2]). The State’s evidence introduced in support of sentence enhancement establishes that on August 10, 1977, defendant was convicted in the Barton County District Court on a charge of felony theft…”
State v. Bandy, 971 P.2d 749 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(a) — 7 cases
State v. Brinkley, 888 P.2d 819 (Kan. 1995).
State v. Mayberry, 807 P.2d 86 (Kan. 1991). “Subsequent to commission of the crimes, but prior to the trial and sentencing of Mayberry, K.”
State v. Greever, 878 P.2d 838 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “21-3710(a)(2), and the trial court enhanced his sentence under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4504(c). He appeals, contending that the court erred by enhancing his sentence under 21-4504(c) and by not reciting the specific findings upon which the enhanced sentence was based and that K.”
State v. Trotter, 783 P.2d 1271 (Kan. 1989).
State v. Osoba, 672 P.2d 1098 (Kan. 1983). “The court denied the motion and sentenced her as a second offender, imposing a $500 fine and ninety days in the county jail plus costs.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(a)(1) — 1 case
State v. Walker, 89 P.3d 920 (Kan. 2004). “The district court acknowledged that there were two journal entries for these convictions and found the Habitual Criminal Act applicable.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(a)(l) — 1 case
State v. Heronemus, 281 P.3d 172 (Kan. 2012).
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(b) — 14 cases
State v. Mitchell, 162 P.3d 18 (Kan. 2007). “In addition, Mitchell argues that his sentences are illegal because K.S.A. 21-4504 (Ensley 1988) does not authorize consecutive sentences.”
State v. Warren, 843 P.2d 224 (Kan. 1992).
Cooper v. Werholtz, 83 P.3d 1212 (Kan. 2004). “; In 1988, Manford Cooper was convicted of a single class A felony and received a life sentence, which was tripled pursuant to the Habitual Criminal Act, K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4504. The Department of Corrections (DOC) informed Cooper, an inmate at the Lansing Correctional…”
State v. Tyler, 840 P.2d 413 (Kan. 1992).
State v. Kelly, 942 P.2d 579 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(c) — 5 cases
State v. Greever, 878 P.2d 838 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “21-3710(a)(2), and the trial court enhanced his sentence under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4504(c). He appeals, contending that the court erred by enhancing his sentence under 21-4504(c) and by not reciting the specific findings upon which the enhanced sentence was based and that K.”
State v. Grissom, 840 P.2d 1142 (Kan. 1992). “The trial court was within its authority and discretion to order the life sentences to run consecutively.”
State v. Eastridge, 894 P.2d 243 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Hollingsworth, 691 P.2d 392 (Kan. 1984).
State v. Kimsey, 164 P.3d 841 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(c)(1) — 1 case
State v. Hankins, 880 P.2d 271 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “The district court’s finding that K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4504 allowed it to enhance Hankins’ sentence using the prior offenses is a question of law.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(c)(l) — 1 case
State v. Geddes, 841 P.2d 1088 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(d) — 4 cases
State v. Hunt, 894 P.2d 178 (Kan. 1995).
State v. Walker, 89 P.3d 920 (Kan. 2004). “The district court acknowledged that there were two journal entries for these convictions and found the Habitual Criminal Act applicable.”
State v. Heronemus, 281 P.3d 172 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Greever, 878 P.2d 838 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “21-3710(a)(2), and the trial court enhanced his sentence under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4504(c). He appeals, contending that the court erred by enhancing his sentence under 21-4504(c) and by not reciting the specific findings upon which the enhanced sentence was based and that K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(e) — 6 cases
State v. Myers, 697 P.2d 879 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Hicks, 714 P.2d 105 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Carmichael, 727 P.2d 918 (Kan. 1986).
State v. Turbeville, 686 P.2d 138 (Kan. 1984).
State v. Maggard, 829 P.2d 591 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(e)(2) — 1 case
State v. Geddes, 841 P.2d 1088 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(e)(3) — 3 cases
State v. Paul, 175 P.3d 840 (Kan. 2008). “Paul attempts to create ambiguity not by pointing to the language of K.S.A.”
State v. Ruiz-Reyes, 175 P.3d 849 (Kan. 2008).
State v. Greever, 878 P.2d 838 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “21-3710(a)(2), and the trial court enhanced his sentence under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4504(c). He appeals, contending that the court erred by enhancing his sentence under 21-4504(c) and by not reciting the specific findings upon which the enhanced sentence was based and that K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(e)(l) — 2 cases
State v. Stafford, 878 P.2d 820 (Kan. 1994).
State v. Brady, 929 P.2d 132 (Kan. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(f) — 3 cases
State v. Kelly, 942 P.2d 579 (Kan. 1997).
State v. Presha, 8 P.3d 14 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Greever, 878 P.2d 838 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “21-3710(a)(2), and the trial court enhanced his sentence under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4504(c). He appeals, contending that the court erred by enhancing his sentence under 21-4504(c) and by not reciting the specific findings upon which the enhanced sentence was based and that K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4504(á) — 1 case
State v. Turbeville, 686 P.2d 138 (Kan. 1984).
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.