21-6628.
Provisions of certain sentencing rules held unconstitutional; modification of sentence previously determined.
(a) In the event the term of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole or any provision of K.S.A. 21-6626 or 21-6627, and amendments thereto, authorizing such term is held to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of Kansas or the United States supreme court, the court having jurisdiction over a person previously sentenced shall cause such person to be brought before the court and shall modify the sentence to require no term of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole and shall sentence the defendant to the maximum term of imprisonment otherwise provided by law.
(b) In the event a sentence of death or any provision of chapter 252 of the 1994 Session Laws of Kansas authorizing such sentence is held to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of Kansas or the United States supreme court, the court having jurisdiction over a person previously sentenced shall cause such person to be brought before the court and shall modify the sentence and resentence the defendant as otherwise provided by law.
(c) In the event the mandatory term of imprisonment or any provision of chapter 341 of the 1994 Session Laws of Kansas authorizing such mandatory term is held to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of Kansas or the United States supreme court, the court having jurisdiction over a person previously sentenced shall cause such person to be brought before the court and shall modify the sentence to require no mandatory term of imprisonment and shall sentence the defendant as otherwise provided by law.
History:
L. 2010, ch. 136, § 268; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 74; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case:
State v. Johnson, 486 P.3d 544 (Kan. 2021).
State v. Johnson, 486 P.3d 544 (Kan. 2021).
· cites it 28× “" In Coleman, we considered and rejected K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628 as a procedural path for relief.”
State v. Coleman, 472 P.3d 85 (Kan. 2020).
· cites it 11× “" Although this court has not specifically interpreted K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6628(c), we did analyze the predecessor statute of K.”
State v. Appleby, 485 P.3d 1148 (Kan. 2021).
· cites it 22× “Finally, like Coleman, Appleby offers K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628(c) as a basis for relief.”
State v. Hill, 492 P.3d 1190 (Kan. 2021).
· cites it 11× “Rather, Hill argues Alleyne simply operated as a trigger to activate the portion of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628 italicized above, which then in turn triggers the remaining requirements of the statute to mandate resentencing under the statute itself.”
State v. Trotter, 485 P.3d 649 (Kan. 2021).
· cites it 24× “Trotter filed a motion invoking K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628. In Coleman, we considered and rejected K.”
Drennan v. State, 506 P.3d 277 (Kan. 2022).
· cites it 5× “2d 435 (2000), and that this court's failure to subsequently correct his sentence violates K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628(c) (formerly K.”
State v. Bedford, 502 P.3d 107 (Kan. 2022).
· cites it 6× “" The district court, relying on Coleman, denied the motion, holding that "a defendant cannot utilize the K.S.A. 21-6628 process to secure a modification of a sentence.”
State v. Albright, 518 P.3d 415 (Kan. 2022).
· cites it 10× “There, we held that K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6628 does not provide a statutory vehicle for a sentence modification based on a defendant's claim that a hard 40 sentence violates the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Alleyne.”
Johnson v. Schmidt (10th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 8× “He also invoked K.S.A. 21-6628(c) (formerly K.S.A. 21-4639(c)), a “fail-safe” provision in Kansas sentencing law that mandates courts to re-sentence defendants in the event the statute authorizing the defendant’s mandatory sentence is held unconstitutional.”
Johnson (ID 79020) v. Wyandotte Cnty. Dist. Court (D. Kan. 2023).
· cites it 8× “2 The Court found in that case that the Wyandotte County District Court addressed Plaintiff’s argument for modification under K.S.A. 21-6628, finding: The defendant argues that Kansas courts have been directed by the legislative branch to resentence any defendant who was…”
State v. Johnson, 564 P.3d 1271 (Kan. 2025).
· cites it 7× “21-4639 (Furse) (or, later, K.S.A. 21-6628[c]) was automatically triggered, the district court had jurisdiction, and due process requires some mechanism to enforce the statutorily created right.”
State v. Verge (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 6× “The statute provides: "(a) In the event the term of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole or any provision of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6626 or 21-6627, and amendments thereto, authorizing such term is held to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of Kansas or…”
— K.S.A. § 21-6628(b) — 1 case
State v. Coleman, 472 P.3d 85 (Kan. 2020).
“" Although this court has not specifically interpreted K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6628(c), we did analyze the predecessor statute of K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6628(c) — 19 cases
State v. Coleman, 472 P.3d 85 (Kan. 2020).
“" Although this court has not specifically interpreted K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6628(c), we did analyze the predecessor statute of K.”
State v. Johnson, 486 P.3d 544 (Kan. 2021).
“" In Coleman, we considered and rejected K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628 as a procedural path for relief.”
State v. Appleby, 485 P.3d 1148 (Kan. 2021).
“Finally, like Coleman, Appleby offers K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628(c) as a basis for relief.”
State v. Hill, 492 P.3d 1190 (Kan. 2021).
“Rather, Hill argues Alleyne simply operated as a trigger to activate the portion of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628 italicized above, which then in turn triggers the remaining requirements of the statute to mandate resentencing under the statute itself.”
State v. Trotter, 485 P.3d 649 (Kan. 2021).
“Trotter filed a motion invoking K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628. In Coleman, we considered and rejected K.”
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.