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

K.S.A. § 21-4604 (2026)

Repealed

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-4604.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4604; L. 1970, ch. 124, § 12; L. 1978, ch. 120, § 6; L. 1980, ch. 101, § 1; L. 1984, ch. 112, § 5; L. 1985, ch. 110, § 1; L. 1991, ch. 90, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 239; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 184; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 45; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1974–2018 · leading case: State v. Korbel, 647 P.2d 1301 (Kan. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Korbel, 647 P.2d 1301 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 21-4604 provides: “(1) . . . Whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony, the court shall require that a presentence investigation be conducted by a probation officer or in accordance with K.”
State v. Rice, 430 P.3d 430 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 2× “In support, Rice cites K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4604(1), which requires a PSI whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony: "Whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony, the court shall require that a presentence investigation be conducted by a court service officer or in…”
State v. Van Hoet, 89 P.3d 606 (Kan. 2004). ““After conviction and prior to sentence and as part of the presentence investigation authorized by K.S.A. 21-4604 and amendments thereto or for crimes committed on or after July 1,1993, a presentence investigation report as provided in K.”
State v. Wright, 646 P.2d 1128 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 9× “Defendant basically raises the following issues on this consolidated appeal: (1) Whether the provisions of K.S.A. 21-4604 regarding presentence investigation reports are mandatory; (2) whether a sentence imposed in violation of 21-4604 is void and illegal; (3) whether the…”
State v. Rome, 5 P.3d 515 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 21-4604(a) provides, in part: “Whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony, the court shall require that a presentence investigation be conducted by a court services officer or in accordance with K.”
State ex rel. Owens v. Hodge, 641 P.2d 399 (Kan. 1982). “In K.S.A. 21-4604 the legislature has provided that a court shall request a presentence investigation in every felony case unless the court finds that adequate and current information is available in a previous investigation report or from other sources.”
State v. Borders, 879 P.2d 620 (Kan. 1994). “*886 K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4604 states in pertinent part: “Whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony, the court shall require that a presentence investigation be conducted by a court services officer or in accordance with K.”
State v. Schaeffer, 286 P.3d 889 (Kan. 2012). “He also advances the more specific claim that the judge’s consideration of statements Schaeffer made during the examination was error because Schaeffer did not receive Miranda warnings before making the statements.”
State v. James, 574 P.2d 181 (Kan. 1977). “Defendant concedes that K.S.A. 21-4604 which provides for a presentence investigation and re *113 port is discretionary with the sentencing judge.”
State v. Tolliver, 916 P.2d 725 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “There also is no provision in the KSGA which prohibits a defendant from misrepresenting his or her identity during a presentence investigation or which explains what happens when a defendant does so.”
State v. Rucas, 734 P.2d 673 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “” K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4604(2)(d). We conclude that vitality of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination extends at least through sentencing, that here the trial court erred in holding to the contrary, and that this case must be reversed.”
Burns v. State, 524 P.2d 737 (Kan. 1974). “(K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-4604, formerly K. S.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
K.S.A. § 21-4604(1): 4 cases
State v. Korbel, 647 P.2d 1301 (Kan. 1982). “K.S.A. 21-4604 provides: “(1) . . . Whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony, the court shall require that a presentence investigation be conducted by a probation officer or in accordance with K.”
State v. Rice, 430 P.3d 430 (Kan. 2018). “In support, Rice cites K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4604(1), which requires a PSI whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony: "Whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony, the court shall require that a presentence investigation be conducted by a court service officer or in…”
State v. Wright, 646 P.2d 1128 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “Defendant basically raises the following issues on this consolidated appeal: (1) Whether the provisions of K.S.A. 21-4604 regarding presentence investigation reports are mandatory; (2) whether a sentence imposed in violation of 21-4604 is void and illegal; (3) whether the…”
State v. Lovelace, 607 P.2d 49 (Kan. 1980).
K.S.A. § 21-4604(2): 3 cases
State v. Rice, 430 P.3d 430 (Kan. 2018). “In support, Rice cites K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4604(1), which requires a PSI whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony: "Whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony, the court shall require that a presentence investigation be conducted by a court service officer or in…”
Lodowski v. State, 490 A.2d 1228 (Md. 1986).
State ex rel. Stephan v. Clark, 759 P.2d 119 (Kan. 1988).
K.S.A. § 21-4604(2)(d): 1 case
State v. Rucas, 734 P.2d 673 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987). “” K.S.A. 1986 Supp. 21-4604(2)(d). We conclude that vitality of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination extends at least through sentencing, that here the trial court erred in holding to the contrary, and that this case must be reversed.”
K.S.A. § 21-4604(a): 2 cases
State v. Rome, 5 P.3d 515 (Kan. 2000). “K.S.A. 21-4604(a) provides, in part: “Whenever a defendant is convicted of a felony, the court shall require that a presentence investigation be conducted by a court services officer or in accordance with K.”
State v. Sims, 887 P.2d 72 (Kan. 1994).
K.S.A. § 21-4604(b): 1 case
State v. Sims, 887 P.2d 72 (Kan. 1994).
K.S.A. § 21-4604(b)(2): 1 case
State v. Parks, 962 P.2d 486 (Kan. 1998).
K.S.A. § 21-4604(b)(3): 1 case
State v. Schaeffer, 286 P.3d 889 (Kan. 2012). “He also advances the more specific claim that the judge’s consideration of statements Schaeffer made during the examination was error because Schaeffer did not receive Miranda warnings before making the statements.”
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.