Kansas Statutes Annotated
K.S.A. § 21-4601 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KS-LEGkslegislature.org
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
21-4601.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4601; L. 1986, ch. 123, § 4; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 131
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State v. Quested, 352 P.3d 553 (Kan. 2015).
State v. Quested, 352 P.3d 553 (Kan. 2015). “at 752 ; see also K.S.A. 21-4601 ("This [sentencing] article shall be liberally construed to the end that persons convicted of crime shall be dealt with in accordance with their individual characteristics .”
State v. Crawford, 824 P.2d 951 (Kan. 1992). “Defendant bases his claim of abuse of district court discretion upon the district court's failure to apply K.S.A. 21-4601 and 21-4606(2). K.S.A. 21-4601 expresses the legislative policy on sentencing as follows: "This article shall be liberally construed to the end that persons…”
State v. McCloud, 891 P.2d 324 (Kan. 1995). “On appeal, the defendant claims: (1) his sentence violates the constitution; reflects partiality, prejudice, or corrupt motive of the judge; and violates the requisite considerations of K.S.A. 21-4601; *3 (2) law enforcement officers used excessive force in executing a search…”
State v. Graham, 30 P.3d 310 (Kan. 2001). “Defendant claims the trial court erred (1) in finding he violated his probation; (2) in fading to consider the factors set out in K.S.A. 21-4601 and K.S.A. 21-4606 when imposing a sentence greater than the statutory minimum sentence; and (3) in refusing to modify his sentence as…”
State v. Davis, 883 P.2d 735 (Kan. 1994). “First, the trial court failed to consider K.S.A. 21-4601 and K.S.A. 21-4606 in sentencing him and K.”
State v. Hill, 895 P.2d 1238 (Kan. 1995). “SENTENCING For his final issue, defendant contends that sentences imposed herein constitute an abuse of judicial discretion as the trial court gave a lengthy sentence with only brief references to the sentencing considerations and guidelines contained in K.S.A. 21-4601 and…”
State v. Buckner, 574 P.2d 918 (Kan. 1977). “K.S.A. 21-4601 establishes the basic tenets and objectives of the sentencing procedure: "Construction.”
State v. Turner, 833 P.2d 921 (Kan. 1992). “If the presumption of probation is denied or does not apply, the trial court must still consider the presumption of assignment to community corrections. When a defendant is being sentenced and no statutory presumptions apply, we have been neither absolute nor exacting in…”
State v. Beechum, 833 P.2d 988 (Kan. 1992). “We addressed the issue of jurisdiction, noting that under Haines we did not have jurisdiction. After a review of the preceding Kansas cases, we determined that we had jurisdiction.”
State v. Stallings, 163 P.3d 1232 (Kan. 2007). “" K.S.A. 21-4601, K.S.A. 22-2103. "The need for treating each defendant in a capital case with that degree of respect due the uniqueness of the individual is far more important than in noncapital cases.”
State v. Ricks, 894 P.2d 191 (Kan. 1995). “CONSIDERATION OF K.S.A. 21-4601 Next, defendant contends that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to more than the minimum terms of imprisonment without considering K.”
State v. Rinck, 888 P.2d 845 (Kan. 1995). “He argues that the district court failed to consider his individual characteristics, circumstances, needs, and potentialities as required by K.S.A. 21-4601 and the sentencing factors found in K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4601(c)(8) — 1 case
State v. Windom, 932 P.2d 1019 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-4601(d) — 1 case
State v. Goertzen (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
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.