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

K.S.A. § 21-4721 (2026)

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

21-4721.

History: L. 1992, ch. 239, § 21; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 17; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 244 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: State v. Huerta, 247 P.3d 1043 (Kan. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Huerta, 247 P.3d 1043 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 20× “But K.S.A. 21-4721 would not permit an appellate court to review the imposition of a presumptive sentence, even if the sentence is based on that same racial bias.”
State v. Looney, 327 P.3d 425 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 16× “K.S.A. 21-4721 governed Looneys appeal when he asked the Court of Appeals to review his sentence.”
State v. Williams, 319 P.3d 528 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 7× “The State raises three threshold issues: (1) whether this court lacks jurisdiction under K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(l) because Williams’ challenge is an appeal from a presumptive sentence; (2) whether the challenge is moot because he is subject to mandatory lifetime postrelease…”
State v. Dull, 351 P.3d 641 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 11× “See K.S.A. 21-4721; State v. Huerta, 291 Kan.”
State v. Johnson, 190 P.3d 207 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 6× “3d 796 (2002) (consecutive sentences do not violate Apprendi-, “appellate courts are without jurisdiction to review sentences that are within the presumptive range for the crime,” citing K.S.A. 21-4721[c][l]); State v. Ivory, 273 Kan.”
State v. Vandervort, 72 P.3d 925 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 5× “CRIMINAL HISTORY CLASSIFICATION Vandervort contends that, despite acknowledging that it had jurisdiction under K.S.A. 21-4721(e) to consider the issue, the Court of Appeals refused to consider the issue of whether the district court appropriately classified his prior Virginia…”
State v. Fischer, 203 P.3d 1269 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 8× “If the sentencing court errs in determining either factor (criminal history score or crime severity level), then that error results in an erroneous classification of the offender’s applicable grid box.”
State v. Ross, 289 P.3d 76 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 7× “Thus, K.S.A. 21-4721(c) does not prevent a defendant from challenging a district court’s decision ordering that a sentence for an on-grid crime run consecutive to a life sentence for an off-grid crime in a multiple conviction case involving both off-grid and on-grid crimes.”
State v. McCallum, 895 P.2d 1258 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 16× “at 247 , the Supreme Court noted that “appeal from the sentence imposed for felony offenses committed on or after July 1, 1993, is limited pursuant to K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4721.” The relevant sections of K.”
State v. Flores, 999 P.2d 919 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 9× “Based on our interpretation of K.S.A. 21-4721, we conclude that we have no jurisdiction to review Flores’ nondeparture sentences despite his claims of abuse of discretion, partiality, prejudice, or corrupt motive.”
State v. Morningstar, 329 P.3d 1093 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 7× “2011) (unpublished opinion) (Morningstar II); see also K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(1) (no direct appeal jurisdiction over presumptive sentences).”
State v. Starks, 885 P.2d 387 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “Under the provisions of K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4721(c), if the crime was committed on or after July 1, 1993, an appellate court shall not review a sentence if: (1) The sentence is within the presumptive sentence for the crime; or (2) the sentence is the result of an agreement…”
Show all 244 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(a) — 33 cases
State v. Looney, 327 P.3d 425 (Kan. 2014). “K.S.A. 21-4721 governed Looneys appeal when he asked the Court of Appeals to review his sentence.”
State v. Ibarra, 411 P.3d 318 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Dull, 351 P.3d 641 (Kan. 2015). “See K.S.A. 21-4721; State v. Huerta, 291 Kan.”
State v. McCallum, 895 P.2d 1258 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “at 247 , the Supreme Court noted that “appeal from the sentence imposed for felony offenses committed on or after July 1, 1993, is limited pursuant to K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4721.” The relevant sections of K.”
State v. Ballard, 218 P.3d 432 (Kan. 2009).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(c) — 27 cases
State v. Starks, 885 P.2d 387 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “Under the provisions of K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4721(c), if the crime was committed on or after July 1, 1993, an appellate court shall not review a sentence if: (1) The sentence is within the presumptive sentence for the crime; or (2) the sentence is the result of an agreement…”
State v. Looney, 327 P.3d 425 (Kan. 2014). “K.S.A. 21-4721 governed Looneys appeal when he asked the Court of Appeals to review his sentence.”
State v. Huerta, 247 P.3d 1043 (Kan. 2011). “But K.S.A. 21-4721 would not permit an appellate court to review the imposition of a presumptive sentence, even if the sentence is based on that same racial bias.”
State v. Dull, 351 P.3d 641 (Kan. 2015). “See K.S.A. 21-4721; State v. Huerta, 291 Kan.”
State v. Campbell, 44 P.3d 349 (Kan. 2002).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(c)(1) — 47 cases
State v. McCaslin, 245 P.3d 1030 (Kan. 2011).
State v. Morningstar, 329 P.3d 1093 (Kan. 2014). “2011) (unpublished opinion) (Morningstar II); see also K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(1) (no direct appeal jurisdiction over presumptive sentences).”
State v. Looney, 327 P.3d 425 (Kan. 2014). “K.S.A. 21-4721 governed Looneys appeal when he asked the Court of Appeals to review his sentence.”
State v. Ivory, 41 P.3d 781 (Kan. 2002).
State v. Clemons, 45 P.3d 384 (Kan. 2002).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(c)(2) — 16 cases
State v. Shull, 381 P.3d 499 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
Noyce v. State, 447 P.3d 355 (Kan. 2019).
State v. Cullen, 60 P.3d 933 (Kan. 2003).
State v. Barajas, 230 P.3d 784 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Duncan, 243 P.3d 338 (Kan. 2010).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(c)(l) — 57 cases
State v. Williams, 319 P.3d 528 (Kan. 2014). “The State raises three threshold issues: (1) whether this court lacks jurisdiction under K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(l) because Williams’ challenge is an appeal from a presumptive sentence; (2) whether the challenge is moot because he is subject to mandatory lifetime postrelease…”
State v. Huerta, 247 P.3d 1043 (Kan. 2011). “But K.S.A. 21-4721 would not permit an appellate court to review the imposition of a presumptive sentence, even if the sentence is based on that same racial bias.”
State v. Johnson, 190 P.3d 207 (Kan. 2008). “3d 796 (2002) (consecutive sentences do not violate Apprendi-, “appellate courts are without jurisdiction to review sentences that are within the presumptive range for the crime,” citing K.S.A. 21-4721[c][l]); State v. Ivory, 273 Kan.”
State v. Warren, 304 P.3d 1288 (Kan. 2013).
State v. Ross, 289 P.3d 76 (Kan. 2012). “Thus, K.S.A. 21-4721(c) does not prevent a defendant from challenging a district court’s decision ordering that a sentence for an on-grid crime run consecutive to a life sentence for an off-grid crime in a multiple conviction case involving both off-grid and on-grid crimes.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(d) — 38 cases
State v. Huerta, 247 P.3d 1043 (Kan. 2011). “But K.S.A. 21-4721 would not permit an appellate court to review the imposition of a presumptive sentence, even if the sentence is based on that same racial bias.”
State v. McKay, 26 P.3d 58 (Kan. 2001).
State v. Richardson, 901 P.2d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Martin, 175 P.3d 832 (Kan. 2008).
State v. Johnson, 190 P.3d 207 (Kan. 2008). “3d 796 (2002) (consecutive sentences do not violate Apprendi-, “appellate courts are without jurisdiction to review sentences that are within the presumptive range for the crime,” citing K.S.A. 21-4721[c][l]); State v. Ivory, 273 Kan.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(d)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Favela, 911 P.2d 792 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Spencer, 248 P.3d 256 (Kan. 2011).
State v. Favela, 898 P.2d 1165 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Davis, 941 P.2d 946 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(d)(2) — 10 cases
State v. Valentine, 921 P.2d 770 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Favela, 911 P.2d 792 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Jackson, 936 P.2d 761 (Kan. 1997).
State v. Richardson, 901 P.2d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Salcido-Corral, 940 P.2d 11 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(d)(l) — 8 cases
State v. Valentine, 921 P.2d 770 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Murphy, 19 P.3d 80 (Kan. 2001).
State v. Salcido-Corral, 940 P.2d 11 (Kan. 1997).
State v. Bailey, 952 P.2d 1289 (Kan. 1998).
State v. Eisele, 936 P.2d 742 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(e) — 29 cases
State v. Vandervort, 72 P.3d 925 (Kan. 2003). “CRIMINAL HISTORY CLASSIFICATION Vandervort contends that, despite acknowledging that it had jurisdiction under K.S.A. 21-4721(e) to consider the issue, the Court of Appeals refused to consider the issue of whether the district court appropriately classified his prior Virginia…”
State v. Shelly, 371 P.3d 820 (Kan. 2016).
State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015).
State v. Walker, 153 P.3d 1257 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Flores, 999 P.2d 919 (Kan. 2000). “Based on our interpretation of K.S.A. 21-4721, we conclude that we have no jurisdiction to review Flores’ nondeparture sentences despite his claims of abuse of discretion, partiality, prejudice, or corrupt motive.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(e)(1) — 9 cases
State v. Walker, 153 P.3d 1257 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Minor, 997 P.2d 648 (Kan. 2000).
State v. Sampsel, 997 P.2d 664 (Kan. 2000).
State v. Favela, 911 P.2d 792 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Flores, 999 P.2d 919 (Kan. 2000). “Based on our interpretation of K.S.A. 21-4721, we conclude that we have no jurisdiction to review Flores’ nondeparture sentences despite his claims of abuse of discretion, partiality, prejudice, or corrupt motive.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(e)(2) — 9 cases
State v. Fischer, 203 P.3d 1269 (Kan. 2009). “If the sentencing court errs in determining either factor (criminal history score or crime severity level), then that error results in an erroneous classification of the offender’s applicable grid box.”
State v. Schow, 197 P.3d 825 (Kan. 2008).
State v. Hodgden, 25 P.3d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Pennington, 80 P.3d 44 (Kan. 2003).
State v. Myers, 888 P.2d 866 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(e)(3) — 23 cases
Laymon v. State, 122 P.3d 326 (Kan. 2005).
State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015).
State v. Snellings, 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Harp, 156 P.3d 1268 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Vandervort, 72 P.3d 925 (Kan. 2003). “CRIMINAL HISTORY CLASSIFICATION Vandervort contends that, despite acknowledging that it had jurisdiction under K.S.A. 21-4721(e) to consider the issue, the Court of Appeals refused to consider the issue of whether the district court appropriately classified his prior Virginia…”
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(e)(l) — 6 cases
State v. Huerta, 247 P.3d 1043 (Kan. 2011). “But K.S.A. 21-4721 would not permit an appellate court to review the imposition of a presumptive sentence, even if the sentence is based on that same racial bias.”
State v. Ngan Pham, 136 P.3d 919 (Kan. 2006).
State v. Ross, 289 P.3d 76 (Kan. 2012). “Thus, K.S.A. 21-4721(c) does not prevent a defendant from challenging a district court’s decision ordering that a sentence for an on-grid crime run consecutive to a life sentence for an off-grid crime in a multiple conviction case involving both off-grid and on-grid crimes.”
State v. Starks, 885 P.2d 387 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “Under the provisions of K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4721(c), if the crime was committed on or after July 1, 1993, an appellate court shall not review a sentence if: (1) The sentence is within the presumptive sentence for the crime; or (2) the sentence is the result of an agreement…”
State v. Scales, 933 P.2d 737 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(f) — 1 case
State v. Bailey, 952 P.2d 1289 (Kan. 1998).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(g) — 4 cases
State v. Davis, 922 P.2d 453 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Gonzales (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
Bookless v. State, 935 P.2d 231 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Walker, 942 P.2d 649 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-4721(i) — 18 cases
State v. Morningstar, 329 P.3d 1093 (Kan. 2014). “2011) (unpublished opinion) (Morningstar II); see also K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(1) (no direct appeal jurisdiction over presumptive sentences).”
State v. Hall, 319 P.3d 506 (Kan. 2014).
State v. Hall, 247 P.3d 1050 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. McGill, 22 P.3d 597 (Kan. 2001).
State v. Anthony, 58 P.3d 742 (Kan. 2002).
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.