21-6814.
Offender's criminal history; admission in court or determined by judge; burden of proof; notice of error by offender; challenge for first time on appeal, burden of proof and procedure.
(a) The offender's criminal history shall be admitted in open court by the offender or determined by a preponderance of the evidence at the sentencing hearing by the sentencing judge.
(b) Except to the extent disputed in accordance with subsection (c), the summary of the offender's criminal history prepared for the court by the state shall satisfy the state's burden of proof regarding an offender's criminal history.
(c) Upon receipt of the criminal history worksheet prepared for the court, the offender shall immediately notify the district attorney and the court with written notice of any error in the proposed criminal history worksheet. Such notice shall specify the exact nature of the alleged error. The state shall have the burden of proving the disputed portion of the offender's criminal history. The sentencing judge shall allow the state reasonable time to produce evidence to establish its burden of proof. If the offender later challenges such offender's criminal history, which has been previously established, the burden of proof shall shift to the offender to prove such offender's criminal history by a preponderance of the evidence.
(d) If an offender raises a challenge to the offender's criminal history for the first time on appeal, the offender shall have the burden of designating a record that shows prejudicial error. If the offender fails to provide such record, the appellate court shall dismiss the claim. In designating a record that shows prejudicial error, the offender may provide the appellate court with journal entries of the challenged criminal history that were not originally attached to the criminal history worksheet, and the state may provide the appellate court with journal entries establishing a lack of prejudicial error. The court may take judicial notice of such journal entries, complaints, plea agreements, jury instructions and verdict forms for Kansas convictions when determining whether prejudicial error exists. The court may remand the case if there is a reasonable question as to whether prejudicial error exists.
History:
L. 2010, ch. 136, § 295; L. 2022, ch. 73, § 4; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
110
cases (
88 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case:
State v. Roberts, 498 P.3d 725 (Kan. 2021).
State v. Roberts, 498 P.3d 725 (Kan. 2021).
· cites it 24× “Both parties cite to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814, which sets forth a specific process for establishing an offender's criminal history in court.”
State v. Obregon, 444 P.3d 331 (Kan. 2019).
· cites it 6× “Typically we describe the classification issue as a question of law, but it is a bit more nuanced because it is the State's burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a crime for which classification is appropriate.”
State v. Corby, 502 P.3d 111 (Kan. 2022).
· cites it 9× “His argument is simply that, under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814, the State has a burden to prove the facts leading to the classification of a prior crime by a preponderance of the evidence, regardless of whether the defendant has admitted to his criminal history.”
State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015).
· cites it 4× “21-4715(c) (recodified at K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6814[c]) of claimed errors within the proposed criminal history worksheet.”
State v. Hankins, 319 P.3d 571 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 10× “Statutory Considerations Putting constitutional issues to one side for the moment, I consider K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-6814, the statute governing how the district court should establish a defendant’s criminal history score and how a defendant may challenge Üiat histoiy.”
State v. Hankins, 372 P.3d 1124 (Kan. 2016).
· cites it 2× “21-4715(c) ("Upon receipt of the criminal history worksheet prepared for the court, the offender shall immediately notify the district attorney and the court with written notice of any error in the proposed criminal history worksheet.”
State v. Ewing, 446 P.3d 463 (Kan. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6814 ; State v. Hughes , 290 Kan.”
State v. Roat, 466 P.3d 439 (Kan. 2020).
“The statutes that govern criminal history determinations— K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6813 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp.”
State v. Tracy, 466 P.3d 434 (Kan. 2020).
· cites it 2× “To begin with, and even assuming Tracy's premise that he has a predilection for recidivism, dismissing this appeal can have no legal effect on how a future sentencing court would classify his prior crimes in a new sentencing proceeding.”
State v. Hasbrouck, 506 P.3d 924 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814, the State bears the burden to prove criminal history at sentencing.”
State v. Albano, 487 P.3d 750 (Kan. 2021).
“K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814(a). This last provision is the basis of Albano's section 5 challenge.”
State v. Myers, 509 P.3d 563 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “The court found that under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814, the State satisfies its initial burden of proving an offender's criminal history by providing the PSI report.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6814(a) — 49 cases
State v. Roberts, 498 P.3d 725 (Kan. 2021).
“Both parties cite to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814, which sets forth a specific process for establishing an offender's criminal history in court.”
State v. Corby, 502 P.3d 111 (Kan. 2022).
“His argument is simply that, under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814, the State has a burden to prove the facts leading to the classification of a prior crime by a preponderance of the evidence, regardless of whether the defendant has admitted to his criminal history.”
State v. Albano, 487 P.3d 750 (Kan. 2021).
“K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814(a). This last provision is the basis of Albano's section 5 challenge.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6814(b) — 33 cases
State v. Roberts, 498 P.3d 725 (Kan. 2021).
“Both parties cite to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814, which sets forth a specific process for establishing an offender's criminal history in court.”
State v. Obregon, 444 P.3d 331 (Kan. 2019).
“Typically we describe the classification issue as a question of law, but it is a bit more nuanced because it is the State's burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a crime for which classification is appropriate.”
State v. Ewing, 446 P.3d 463 (Kan. 2019).
“See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6814 ; State v. Hughes , 290 Kan.”
State v. Corby, 502 P.3d 111 (Kan. 2022).
“His argument is simply that, under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814, the State has a burden to prove the facts leading to the classification of a prior crime by a preponderance of the evidence, regardless of whether the defendant has admitted to his criminal history.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6814(c) — 61 cases
State v. Roberts, 498 P.3d 725 (Kan. 2021).
“Both parties cite to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814, which sets forth a specific process for establishing an offender's criminal history in court.”
State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015).
“21-4715(c) (recodified at K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6814[c]) of claimed errors within the proposed criminal history worksheet.”
State v. Hankins, 319 P.3d 571 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).
“Statutory Considerations Putting constitutional issues to one side for the moment, I consider K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-6814, the statute governing how the district court should establish a defendant’s criminal history score and how a defendant may challenge Üiat histoiy.”
State v. Tracy, 466 P.3d 434 (Kan. 2020).
“To begin with, and even assuming Tracy's premise that he has a predilection for recidivism, dismissing this appeal can have no legal effect on how a future sentencing court would classify his prior crimes in a new sentencing proceeding.”
State v. Hasbrouck, 506 P.3d 924 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6814, the State bears the burden to prove criminal history at sentencing.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6814(d) — 18 cases
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.