History:
L. 1994, ch. 341, § 5; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 11; Repealed, L. 2011, ch. 30, § 288; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. District court's determination that defendant was not mentally retarded upheld upon review by an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Backus, 295 Kan. 1003, 287 P.3d 894 (2012).
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant was not mentally retarded and ordering him to prison. State v. Maestas, 298 Kan. 765, 316 P.3d 724 (2014).
State v. Maestas, 316 P.3d 724 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 21דHe advances five issues: (1) prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense of recldess second-degree murder; (3) alleged infringement on his *768 right to present his defense; (4) the district court’s determination for sentencing purposes…”
State v. Thurber, 420 P.3d 389 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 7דBut we have considered the standard of review under parallel statutory language contained in K.S.A. 21-4634, which precludes a district court from imposing upon a defendant who is intellectually disabled any mandatory term of imprisonment for premeditated first-degree murder.”
State v. Backus, 287 P.3d 894 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 6דBecause the State filed notice that it intended to seek the hard 50 life sentence, Backus also filed a motion to determine his status as a mentally retarded person pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4634, because the court may not impose a hard 50 sentence on a mentally retarded person.”
State v. Powell, 56 P.3d 189 (Kan. 2002). “During the sentencing phrase, the trial court found Powell was mentally retarded in accordance with K.S.A. 21-4634 and that a sentence of death could not be entered.”
State v. Corbin (Kan. 2016). “3d 724 (2014) (reviewing previous version of intellectual disability statute, K.S.A. 21-4634); State v. Backus, 295 Kan.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4634(a) — 2 cases
State v. Maestas, 316 P.3d 724 (Kan. 2014). “He advances five issues: (1) prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense of recldess second-degree murder; (3) alleged infringement on his *768 right to present his defense; (4) the district court’s determination for sentencing purposes…”
State v. Backus, 287 P.3d 894 (Kan. 2012). “Because the State filed notice that it intended to seek the hard 50 life sentence, Backus also filed a motion to determine his status as a mentally retarded person pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4634, because the court may not impose a hard 50 sentence on a mentally retarded person.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4634(c) — 1 case
State v. Maestas, 316 P.3d 724 (Kan. 2014). “He advances five issues: (1) prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense of recldess second-degree murder; (3) alleged infringement on his *768 right to present his defense; (4) the district court’s determination for sentencing purposes…”
— K.S.A. § 21-4634(d) — 1 case
State v. Maestas, 316 P.3d 724 (Kan. 2014). “He advances five issues: (1) prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense of recldess second-degree murder; (3) alleged infringement on his *768 right to present his defense; (4) the district court’s determination for sentencing purposes…”
— K.S.A. § 21-4634(e) — 1 case
State v. Thurber, 420 P.3d 389 (Kan. 2018). “But we have considered the standard of review under parallel statutory language contained in K.S.A. 21-4634, which precludes a district court from imposing upon a defendant who is intellectually disabled any mandatory term of imprisonment for premeditated first-degree murder.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4634(f) — 2 cases
State v. Thurber, 420 P.3d 389 (Kan. 2018). “But we have considered the standard of review under parallel statutory language contained in K.S.A. 21-4634, which precludes a district court from imposing upon a defendant who is intellectually disabled any mandatory term of imprisonment for premeditated first-degree murder.”
State v. Maestas, 316 P.3d 724 (Kan. 2014). “He advances five issues: (1) prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense of recldess second-degree murder; (3) alleged infringement on his *768 right to present his defense; (4) the district court’s determination for sentencing purposes…”
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.