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

K.S.A. § 21-4704 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: K.S.A. § 21-4704 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-4704.

History: L. 1992, ch. 239, § 4; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 254; L. 1994, ch. 341, § 1; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 3; L. 1996, ch. 258, § 10; L. 1999, ch. 164, § 17; L. 2001, ch. 186, § 2; L. 2002, ch. 10, § 1; L. 2004, ch. 175, § 3; L. 2006, ch. 126, § 4; L. 2006, ch. 212, § 16; L. 2007, ch. 169, § 3; L. 2008, ch. 183, § 4; L. 2009, ch. 132, § 10; L. 2010, ch. 147, § 5; L. 2010, ch. 147, § 6; Repealed, L. 2011, ch. 30, § 288; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 250 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: State v. Johnson
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Johnson (2008) kan · cites it 14× “Johnson had no prior criminal history; thus, he was assigned a criminal history score of I.”
State v. Turner (2012) kan · cites it 26× “We will begin our analysis with his claim that the general nondrug crime sentencing guidelines statute, K.S.A. 21-4704, should govern his sentences.”
State v. Boyer (2009) kan · cites it 19× “21-4710, which includes certain juvenile adjudications, should be used to interpret a “prior conviction” for purposes of K.S.A. 21-4704. Boyer argues that if the legislature had intended juvenile adjudications to count as prior convictions for K.”
State v. Allen (2007) kan · cites it 11× “The doubling of Allen’s sentence under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-4704(j)(1) was based upon a finding made by the trial judge without benefit of a jury determination or a determination made as a part of his juvenile adjudication.”
State v. LaBELLE (2010) kan · cites it 13× “Did the district court err in classifying LaBelle as a persistent sex offender and in ultimately doubling his sentence pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4704? Yes. 2. Did the district court violate LaBelle’s Sixth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution by sentencing him to…”
State v. Moore (2002) kan · cites it 10× “See K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 21-4704(a). *650 The district court applied K.”
State v. Foster (2008) kanctapp · cites it 20× “According to K.S.A. 21-4704 the sentencing court may impose an optional nonprison sentence only upon the making of a finding on the record that a nonprison sanction will serve community safety interests by promoting offender reformation.”
State v. Chesbro (2006) kanctapp · cites it 20× “” This defendant contended at sentencing that although the persistent sex offender provisions, if applicable, required the district court to double the maximum applicable grid sentence, nothing within K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-4704 prohibited the application of the departure…”
State v. Gould (2001) kan · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 21-4704. The State moved for an upward departure sentence under K.”
State v. Ivory (2002) kan · cites it 3× “Ivory received a sentence within the presumptive range, the sentence was not subject to challenge on appeal, and Apprendi did not apply.”
State v. Hankins (2016) kan · cites it 4× “S.A. 21-4711(e). The question presented here is whether Hankins' Oklahoma deferred judgment is to be classified as an out-of-state felony conviction for criminal history classification purposes under the KSGA.”
State v. Wetrich (2018) kan · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 21-4704 (nondrug offense grid); K.”
Show all 250 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(1) — 4 cases
State v. Pearce (2015) kanctapp
State v. Miller (2004) kanctapp
State v. Kirby (2004) kanctapp
State v. Bermudez (2026) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(1)(2) — 1 case
State v. Dale (2009) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(a) — 51 cases
State v. Bost (1995) kanctapp
State v. Moore (2002) kan “See K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 21-4704(a). *650 The district court applied K.”
State v. Williams (2014) kan
State v. Anthony (2002) kan
State v. Gracey (2009) kan
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(b) — 2 cases
State v. Rhoads (1995) kanctapp
United States v. Young (2008) ksd
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(b)(l) — 1 case
State v. Sidders (1995) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(c) — 4 cases
State v. Keel (2015) kan
State v. Neal (2011) kan
In re J.E.M. (1995) kanctapp
In Re JEM (1995) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(d) — 8 cases
State v. Spencer (2011) kan
In Re the Care & Treatment of Johnson (2004) kanctapp
State v. Chesbro (2006) kanctapp “” This defendant contended at sentencing that although the persistent sex offender provisions, if applicable, required the district court to double the maximum applicable grid sentence, nothing within K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-4704 prohibited the application of the departure…”
State v. Dillon (2010) kanctapp
United States v. Prince (2001) ksd
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(e) — 1 case
Phillpot v. Shelton (1994) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(e)(1) — 12 cases
State v. Johnson (2008) kan “Johnson had no prior criminal history; thus, he was assigned a criminal history score of I.”
State v. McCaslin (2011) kan
State v. Hankins (2016) kan “S.A. 21-4711(e). The question presented here is whether Hankins' Oklahoma deferred judgment is to be classified as an out-of-state felony conviction for criminal history classification purposes under the KSGA.”
State v. Trautloff (2009) kan
State v. Lamia-Beck (2024) kan
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(e)(2) — 17 cases
State v. Williams (2014) kan
State v. Van Lehman (2018) kan
State v. Mossman (2012) kan
State v. Gaudina (2007) kan
State v. Ballard (2009) kan
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(e)(3) — 2 cases
State v. Miller (1996) kan
State v. Dillard (1995) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(e)(l) — 13 cases
State v. Johnson (2008) kan “Johnson had no prior criminal history; thus, he was assigned a criminal history score of I.”
State v. Gallegos (2008) kan
State v. Raschke (2009) kan
State v. Hankins (2016) kan “S.A. 21-4711(e). The question presented here is whether Hankins' Oklahoma deferred judgment is to be classified as an out-of-state felony conviction for criminal history classification purposes under the KSGA.”
State v. Jones (2010) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(f) — 15 cases
State v. Whitlock (2006) kanctapp
State v. Bost (1995) kanctapp
State v. Proctor (2012) kanctapp
State v. Hawkins (2008) kanctapp
State v. Chesbro (2006) kanctapp “” This defendant contended at sentencing that although the persistent sex offender provisions, if applicable, required the district court to double the maximum applicable grid sentence, nothing within K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-4704 prohibited the application of the departure…”
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(f)(1) — 1 case
State v. Whitlock (2006) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(f)(l) — 4 cases
State v. Proctor (2012) kanctapp
State v. Colbert (1998) kanctapp
State v. Sidders (1995) kanctapp
State v. Cernech (1996) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(g) — 2 cases
State v. Sidders (1995) kanctapp
State v. Hackler (1995) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(h) — 12 cases
State v. Foster (2008) kanctapp “According to K.S.A. 21-4704 the sentencing court may impose an optional nonprison sentence only upon the making of a finding on the record that a nonprison sanction will serve community safety interests by promoting offender reformation.”
State v. Nambo (2012) kan
State v. George (1995) kanctapp
State v. Garcia (2002) kan
State v. Urista (2013) kan
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(i) — 5 cases
State v. Anthony (2002) kan
State v. Luttig (2009) kanctapp
State v. Reese (2014) kan
State v. Binkley (1995) kanctapp
State v. Anthony (2002) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(j) — 30 cases
State v. LaBELLE (2010) kan “Did the district court err in classifying LaBelle as a persistent sex offender and in ultimately doubling his sentence pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4704? Yes. 2. Did the district court violate LaBelle’s Sixth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution by sentencing him to…”
State v. Boyer (2009) kan “21-4710, which includes certain juvenile adjudications, should be used to interpret a “prior conviction” for purposes of K.S.A. 21-4704. Boyer argues that if the legislature had intended juvenile adjudications to count as prior convictions for K.”
State v. Moore (2002) kan “See K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 21-4704(a). *650 The district court applied K.”
State v. Allen (2007) kan “The doubling of Allen’s sentence under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-4704(j)(1) was based upon a finding made by the trial judge without benefit of a jury determination or a determination made as a part of his juvenile adjudication.”
State v. Chesbro (2006) kanctapp “” This defendant contended at sentencing that although the persistent sex offender provisions, if applicable, required the district court to double the maximum applicable grid sentence, nothing within K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-4704 prohibited the application of the departure…”
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(j)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Allen (2007) kan “The doubling of Allen’s sentence under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-4704(j)(1) was based upon a finding made by the trial judge without benefit of a jury determination or a determination made as a part of his juvenile adjudication.”
State v. Chesbro (2006) kanctapp “” This defendant contended at sentencing that although the persistent sex offender provisions, if applicable, required the district court to double the maximum applicable grid sentence, nothing within K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-4704 prohibited the application of the departure…”
State v. Riolo (2021) kanctapp
State v. Moore (2022) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(j)(2) — 10 cases
State v. Turner (2012) kan “We will begin our analysis with his claim that the general nondrug crime sentencing guidelines statute, K.S.A. 21-4704, should govern his sentences.”
State v. Boyer (2009) kan “21-4710, which includes certain juvenile adjudications, should be used to interpret a “prior conviction” for purposes of K.S.A. 21-4704. Boyer argues that if the legislature had intended juvenile adjudications to count as prior convictions for K.”
State v. Riolo (2014) kanctapp
State v. Allen (2007) kan “The doubling of Allen’s sentence under K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-4704(j)(1) was based upon a finding made by the trial judge without benefit of a jury determination or a determination made as a part of his juvenile adjudication.”
State v. Chesbro (2006) kanctapp “” This defendant contended at sentencing that although the persistent sex offender provisions, if applicable, required the district court to double the maximum applicable grid sentence, nothing within K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-4704 prohibited the application of the departure…”
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(j)(2)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
State v. Boyer (2009) kan “21-4710, which includes certain juvenile adjudications, should be used to interpret a “prior conviction” for purposes of K.S.A. 21-4704. Boyer argues that if the legislature had intended juvenile adjudications to count as prior convictions for K.”
State v. Boyer (2008) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(j)(2)(B) — 4 cases
State v. Turner (2012) kan “We will begin our analysis with his claim that the general nondrug crime sentencing guidelines statute, K.S.A. 21-4704, should govern his sentences.”
State v. Greene (2014) kan
State v. Jones (2020) kanctapp
State v. Seck (2024) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(j)(3) — 3 cases
State v. Turner (2012) kan “We will begin our analysis with his claim that the general nondrug crime sentencing guidelines statute, K.S.A. 21-4704, should govern his sentences.”
State v. Jones (2020) kanctapp
State v. Seck (2024) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(j)(l) — 5 cases
State v. Case (2009) kan
State v. Boyer (2009) kan “21-4710, which includes certain juvenile adjudications, should be used to interpret a “prior conviction” for purposes of K.S.A. 21-4704. Boyer argues that if the legislature had intended juvenile adjudications to count as prior convictions for K.”
State v. Riolo (2014) kanctapp
State v. Wilson (2012) kan
State v. Lowden (2008) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(k) — 2 cases
State v. Peppers (2012) kan
State v. Foster (2008) kanctapp “According to K.S.A. 21-4704 the sentencing court may impose an optional nonprison sentence only upon the making of a finding on the record that a nonprison sanction will serve community safety interests by promoting offender reformation.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4704(p) — 3 cases
State v. Bonner (2010) kan
State v. Currie (2013) kanctapp
State v. Williams (2012) kanctapp
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.