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

K.S.A. § 21-4724 (2026)

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

21-4724.

History: L. 1992, ch. 239, § 24; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 268; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: State v. Fierro, 895 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fierro, 895 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 48× “2d 612 (1994) (conversion is mandatory for persons sentenced before July 1, 1993, if they qualify for retroactivity under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724[b]). This appeal involves statutory construction.”
Farris v. McKune, 911 P.2d 177 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 38× “See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4724. Each of the offenders committed sexual crimes, and the severity level of the crimes under the KSGA depends upon the age of the victims at the time the crimes were committed.”
State v. Gonzales, 874 P.2d 612 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 9× “: The basic issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to convert the defendants’ sentences under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724. There is also a jurisdictional question as to whether the conversion issue may be appealed.”
Mueller v. State, 24 P.3d 149 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “for a crime committed prior to July 1, 1993, and the person is not eligible for retroactive application of the sentencing guidelines and amendments thereto pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4724 and amendments thereto, the new sentence shall not be aggregated with the old sentence, but…”
State v. Jeffries, 375 P.3d 316 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 14× “This challenge is founded upon the 1993 KSGA provision addressing the applicability of that act to crimes committed prior to July 1, 1993, K.S.A. 21-4724 (Furse 1995), as interpreted in light of Murdock .”
Davis v. Roberts, 425 F.3d 830 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4724 . According to Mr.”
State v. Jones, 951 P.2d 1302 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 19× “*670 RETROACTIVITY OF KSGA The defendant argues the retroactivity provision of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) at K.S.A. 21-4724 violates various provisions of the United States Constitution.”
State v. Randall, 894 P.2d 196 (Kan. 1995). · cites it 8× “See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4724; Chiles, 254 Kan.”
Price v. State, 21 P.3d 1021 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Under K.S.A. 21-4724, the DOC reviewed Price’s records and notified him that the severity level of his rape conviction made him ineligible for retroactive application of the sentencing guidelines for conversion of his aggravated burglary sentence.”
Safarik v. Bruce, 883 P.2d 1211 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 7× “K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724(c)(l) requires KDOC to review and determine inmate placement on the sentencing guidelines grid.”
State v. Roseborough, 951 P.2d 532 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 14× “On November 30, 1993, the Department of Corrections issued a sentencing guidelines report pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4724 which determined Roseborough’s controlling severity level was level 4 drug for his conviction of cocaine possession in 91-CR-878.”
State v. England, 245 P.3d 1076 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “Moreover, England’s argument requires interpretation of K.S.A. 21-4724. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.”
Show all 88 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(a) — 2 cases
State v. England, 245 P.3d 1076 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “Moreover, England’s argument requires interpretation of K.S.A. 21-4724. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.”
State v. Jeffries, 375 P.3d 316 (Kan. 2016). “This challenge is founded upon the 1993 KSGA provision addressing the applicability of that act to crimes committed prior to July 1, 1993, K.S.A. 21-4724 (Furse 1995), as interpreted in light of Murdock .”
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(b) — 13 cases
State v. Fierro, 895 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1995). “2d 612 (1994) (conversion is mandatory for persons sentenced before July 1, 1993, if they qualify for retroactivity under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724[b]). This appeal involves statutory construction.”
State v. LaMunyon, 911 P.2d 151 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Gonzales, 874 P.2d 612 (Kan. 1994). “: The basic issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to convert the defendants’ sentences under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724. There is also a jurisdictional question as to whether the conversion issue may be appealed.”
Mueller v. State, 24 P.3d 149 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “for a crime committed prior to July 1, 1993, and the person is not eligible for retroactive application of the sentencing guidelines and amendments thereto pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4724 and amendments thereto, the new sentence shall not be aggregated with the old sentence, but…”
State v. Roseborough, 951 P.2d 532 (Kan. 1997). “On November 30, 1993, the Department of Corrections issued a sentencing guidelines report pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4724 which determined Roseborough’s controlling severity level was level 4 drug for his conviction of cocaine possession in 91-CR-878.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(b)(1) — 13 cases
Price v. State, 21 P.3d 1021 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “Under K.S.A. 21-4724, the DOC reviewed Price’s records and notified him that the severity level of his rape conviction made him ineligible for retroactive application of the sentencing guidelines for conversion of his aggravated burglary sentence.”
Farris v. McKune, 911 P.2d 177 (Kan. 1996). “See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4724. Each of the offenders committed sexual crimes, and the severity level of the crimes under the KSGA depends upon the age of the victims at the time the crimes were committed.”
State v. Fierro, 895 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1995). “2d 612 (1994) (conversion is mandatory for persons sentenced before July 1, 1993, if they qualify for retroactivity under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724[b]). This appeal involves statutory construction.”
State v. Jeffries, 375 P.3d 316 (Kan. 2016). “This challenge is founded upon the 1993 KSGA provision addressing the applicability of that act to crimes committed prior to July 1, 1993, K.S.A. 21-4724 (Furse 1995), as interpreted in light of Murdock .”
Jones v. Bruce, 921 F. Supp. 708 (D. Kan. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(b)(2) — 3 cases
Mueller v. State, 24 P.3d 149 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “for a crime committed prior to July 1, 1993, and the person is not eligible for retroactive application of the sentencing guidelines and amendments thereto pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4724 and amendments thereto, the new sentence shall not be aggregated with the old sentence, but…”
State v. Allison (Kan. 2017).
Wright v. Davies, 78 F.3d 598 (10th Cir. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(b)(l) — 21 cases
Mueller v. State, 24 P.3d 149 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “for a crime committed prior to July 1, 1993, and the person is not eligible for retroactive application of the sentencing guidelines and amendments thereto pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4724 and amendments thereto, the new sentence shall not be aggregated with the old sentence, but…”
State v. Gonzales, 874 P.2d 612 (Kan. 1994). “: The basic issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to convert the defendants’ sentences under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724. There is also a jurisdictional question as to whether the conversion issue may be appealed.”
State v. Sidders, 888 P.2d 409 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
Chiles v. State, 869 P.2d 707 (Kan. 1994).
State v. Roseborough, 951 P.2d 532 (Kan. 1997). “On November 30, 1993, the Department of Corrections issued a sentencing guidelines report pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4724 which determined Roseborough’s controlling severity level was level 4 drug for his conviction of cocaine possession in 91-CR-878.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(c) — 4 cases
State v. Jones, 951 P.2d 1302 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “*670 RETROACTIVITY OF KSGA The defendant argues the retroactivity provision of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) at K.S.A. 21-4724 violates various provisions of the United States Constitution.”
Phillpot v. Shelton, 875 P.2d 289 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Standifer, 946 P.2d 637 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Geis, 894 P.2d 213 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(c)(1) — 7 cases
Farris v. McKune, 911 P.2d 177 (Kan. 1996). “See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4724. Each of the offenders committed sexual crimes, and the severity level of the crimes under the KSGA depends upon the age of the victims at the time the crimes were committed.”
State v. Jeffries, 375 P.3d 316 (Kan. 2016). “This challenge is founded upon the 1993 KSGA provision addressing the applicability of that act to crimes committed prior to July 1, 1993, K.S.A. 21-4724 (Furse 1995), as interpreted in light of Murdock .”
State v. Fierro, 895 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1995). “2d 612 (1994) (conversion is mandatory for persons sentenced before July 1, 1993, if they qualify for retroactivity under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724[b]). This appeal involves statutory construction.”
Smith v. McKune, 76 P.3d 1060 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
Baker v. State, 894 P.2d 221 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(c)(2) — 2 cases
Farris v. McKune, 911 P.2d 177 (Kan. 1996). “See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4724. Each of the offenders committed sexual crimes, and the severity level of the crimes under the KSGA depends upon the age of the victims at the time the crimes were committed.”
State v. Geis, 894 P.2d 213 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(c)(4) — 8 cases
Safarik v. Bruce, 883 P.2d 1211 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724(c)(l) requires KDOC to review and determine inmate placement on the sentencing guidelines grid.”
State v. Staven, 881 P.2d 573 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Schow, 161 P.3d 222 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Jeffries, 375 P.3d 316 (Kan. 2016). “This challenge is founded upon the 1993 KSGA provision addressing the applicability of that act to crimes committed prior to July 1, 1993, K.S.A. 21-4724 (Furse 1995), as interpreted in light of Murdock .”
Jenkins v. State, 87 P.3d 983 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(c)(l) — 12 cases
State v. Randall, 894 P.2d 196 (Kan. 1995). “See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4724; Chiles, 254 Kan.”
State v. Ward, 886 P.2d 890 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Colston, 883 P.2d 1231 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Fierro, 895 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1995). “2d 612 (1994) (conversion is mandatory for persons sentenced before July 1, 1993, if they qualify for retroactivity under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724[b]). This appeal involves statutory construction.”
State v. Dickey, 329 P.3d 1230 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(d) — 9 cases
Farris v. McKune, 911 P.2d 177 (Kan. 1996). “See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4724. Each of the offenders committed sexual crimes, and the severity level of the crimes under the KSGA depends upon the age of the victims at the time the crimes were committed.”
Safarik v. Bruce, 883 P.2d 1211 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724(c)(l) requires KDOC to review and determine inmate placement on the sentencing guidelines grid.”
State v. Gonzales, 874 P.2d 612 (Kan. 1994). “: The basic issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to convert the defendants’ sentences under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724. There is also a jurisdictional question as to whether the conversion issue may be appealed.”
State v. Rhoads, 892 P.2d 918 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Staven, 881 P.2d 573 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(d)(1) — 3 cases
Farris v. McKune, 911 P.2d 177 (Kan. 1996). “See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4724. Each of the offenders committed sexual crimes, and the severity level of the crimes under the KSGA depends upon the age of the victims at the time the crimes were committed.”
State v. Jones, 951 P.2d 1302 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “*670 RETROACTIVITY OF KSGA The defendant argues the retroactivity provision of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) at K.S.A. 21-4724 violates various provisions of the United States Constitution.”
State v. Porting, 892 P.2d 915 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(d)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Staven, 881 P.2d 573 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Sammons, 915 P.2d 788 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(d)(3) — 3 cases
State v. Porting, 892 P.2d 915 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Harlin, 936 P.2d 292 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Geis, 894 P.2d 213 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(d)(l) — 9 cases
State v. Randall, 894 P.2d 196 (Kan. 1995). “See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4724; Chiles, 254 Kan.”
State v. Gonzales, 874 P.2d 612 (Kan. 1994). “: The basic issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to convert the defendants’ sentences under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724. There is also a jurisdictional question as to whether the conversion issue may be appealed.”
State v. Jones, 951 P.2d 1302 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “*670 RETROACTIVITY OF KSGA The defendant argues the retroactivity provision of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) at K.S.A. 21-4724 violates various provisions of the United States Constitution.”
State v. Standifer, 946 P.2d 637 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Austin, 901 P.2d 9 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(e) — 3 cases
State v. Fierro, 895 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1995). “2d 612 (1994) (conversion is mandatory for persons sentenced before July 1, 1993, if they qualify for retroactivity under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724[b]). This appeal involves statutory construction.”
State v. Colston, 883 P.2d 1231 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Trimble, 894 P.2d 920 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 21-4724(f) — 26 cases
State v. Fierro, 895 P.2d 186 (Kan. 1995). “2d 612 (1994) (conversion is mandatory for persons sentenced before July 1, 1993, if they qualify for retroactivity under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4724[b]). This appeal involves statutory construction.”
Farris v. McKune, 911 P.2d 177 (Kan. 1996). “See K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4724. Each of the offenders committed sexual crimes, and the severity level of the crimes under the KSGA depends upon the age of the victims at the time the crimes were committed.”
State v. England, 245 P.3d 1076 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “Moreover, England’s argument requires interpretation of K.S.A. 21-4724. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.”
State v. Whitaker, 917 P.2d 859 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Richmond, 904 P.2d 974 (Kan. 1995).
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.