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

K.S.A. § 21-4704b (2026)

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

21-4704b.

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2; L. 2002, ch. 10, § 1; L. 2004, ch. 175, § 3; L. 2006, ch. 126, § 4; L. 2006, ch. 212, § 16; L. 2007, ch. 181, § 10; Repealed, L. 2008, ch. 183, § 13; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2008–2009 · leading case: State v. Schad, 206 P.3d 22 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Schad, 206 P.3d 22 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 11× “Based on his criminal history, Schad fell within 5-1, which was a border box, on the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Acts grid, K.S.A. 21-4704b. As a result, Schad’s conviction of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child carried a presumptive sentence of 31 to 34 months’…”
State v. Foster, 180 P.3d 1074 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “" The comment made by the State that the majority criticizes are exact words from K.S.A. 21-4704b(f)(3). These words can in no way be construed as contradicting the plea agreement and would have had little effect on the district court, which is bound to follow the law.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4704b(f) — 1 case
State v. Schad, 206 P.3d 22 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “Based on his criminal history, Schad fell within 5-1, which was a border box, on the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Acts grid, K.S.A. 21-4704b. As a result, Schad’s conviction of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child carried a presumptive sentence of 31 to 34 months’…”
— K.S.A. § 21-4704b(f)(3) — 1 case
State v. Foster, 180 P.3d 1074 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “" The comment made by the State that the majority criticizes are exact words from K.S.A. 21-4704b(f)(3). These words can in no way be construed as contradicting the plea agreement and would have had little effect on the district court, which is bound to follow the law.”
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.