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

K.S.A. § 21-6819 (2026)

Sentencing in multiple conviction cases; discretion of judge to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences; requirements applicable; departure sentencing based on aggravating factors

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

21-6819. Sentencing in multiple conviction cases; discretion of judge to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences; requirements applicable; departure sentencing based on aggravating factors. (a) The provisions of subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (h) of K.S.A. 21-6606, and amendments thereto, regarding multiple sentences shall apply to the sentencing of offenders pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. The mandatory consecutive sentence requirements contained in subsections (c), (d) and (e) of K.S.A. 21-6606, and amendments thereto, shall not apply if such application would result in a manifest injustice.

(b) The sentencing judge shall otherwise have discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences in multiple conviction cases. The sentencing judge may consider the need to impose an overall sentence that is proportionate to the harm and culpability and shall state on the record if the sentence is to be served concurrently or consecutively. In cases where consecutive sentences may be imposed by the sentencing judge, the following shall apply:

(1) When the sentencing judge imposes multiple sentences consecutively, the consecutive sentences shall consist of an imprisonment term which may not exceed the sum of the consecutive imprisonment terms, and a supervision term. The sentencing judge shall have the discretion to impose a consecutive term of imprisonment for a crime other than the primary crime of any term of months not to exceed the nonbase sentence as determined under subsection (b)(5). The postrelease supervision term will be based on the longest supervision term imposed for any of the crimes.

(2) The sentencing judge shall establish a base sentence for the primary crime. The primary crime is the crime with the highest crime severity ranking. An off-grid crime shall not be used as the primary crime in determining the base sentence when imposing multiple sentences. If sentences for off-grid and on-grid convictions are ordered to run consecutively, the offender shall not begin to serve the on-grid sentence until paroled from the off-grid sentence, and the postrelease supervision term will be based on the off-grid crime. If more than one crime of conviction is classified in the same crime category, the sentencing judge shall designate which crime will serve as the primary crime. In the instance of sentencing with both the drug grid and the nondrug grid and simultaneously having a presumption of imprisonment and probation, the sentencing judge shall use the crime which presumes imprisonment as the primary crime. In the instance of sentencing with both the drug grid and the nondrug grid and simultaneously having a presumption of either both probation or both imprisonment, the sentencing judge shall use the crime with the longest sentence term as the primary crime.

(3) The base sentence is set using the total criminal history score assigned.

(4) The total prison sentence imposed in a case involving multiple convictions arising from multiple counts within an information, complaint or indictment cannot exceed twice the base sentence. This limit shall apply only to the total sentence, and it shall not be necessary to reduce the duration of any of the nonbase sentences imposed to be served consecutively to the base sentence. The postrelease supervision term will reflect only the longest such term assigned to any of the crimes for which consecutive sentences are imposed. Supervision periods shall not be aggregated.

(5) Nonbase sentences shall not have criminal history scores applied, as calculated in the criminal history I column of the grid, but base sentences shall have the full criminal history score assigned. In the event a conviction designated as the primary crime in a multiple conviction case is reversed on appeal, the appellate court shall remand the multiple conviction case for resentencing. Upon resentencing, if the case remains a multiple conviction case the court shall follow all of the provisions of this section concerning the sentencing of multiple conviction cases.

(6) If the sentence for the primary crime is a prison term, the entire imprisonment term of the consecutive sentences will be served in prison.

(7) If the sentence for the consecutive sentences is a prison term, the postrelease supervision term is a term of postrelease supervision as established for the primary crime.

(8) If the sentence for the primary crime is a nonprison sentence, a nonprison term will be imposed for each crime conviction, but the nonprison terms shall not be aggregated or served consecutively even though the underlying prison sentences have been ordered to be served consecutively. Upon revocation of the nonprison sentence, the offender shall serve the prison sentences consecutively as provided in this section.

(c) The following shall apply for a departure from the presumptive sentence based on aggravating factors within the context of consecutive sentences:

(1) The court may depart from the presumptive limits for consecutive sentences only if the judge finds substantial and compelling reasons to impose a departure sentence for any of the individual crimes being sentenced consecutively.

(2) When a departure sentence is imposed for any of the individual crimes sentenced consecutively, the imprisonment term of that departure sentence shall not exceed twice the maximum presumptive imprisonment term that may be imposed for that crime.

(3) The total imprisonment term of the consecutive sentences, including the imprisonment term for the departure crime, shall not exceed twice the maximum presumptive imprisonment term of the departure sentence following aggravation.

History: L. 2010, ch. 136, § 300; L. 2012, ch. 150, § 36; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72 cases (48 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: State v. Young, 490 P.3d 1183 (Kan. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Young, 490 P.3d 1183 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 16× “Our dive begins with the KSGA provision covering sentences for multiple convictions: K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819. That statute is part of the KSGA and article 68.”
State v. Redick, 414 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 12× “Subsection (b) of that statute focuses on "cases where consecutive sentences may be imposed" and provides in part: "(2) The sentencing judge shall establish a base sentence for the primary crime. . . . An off-grid crime shall not be used as the primary crime in determining the…”
State v. Fowler, 457 P.3d 927 (Kan. 2020). · cites it 13× “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6819 contains the procedures for sentencing in a multiple-conviction case such as Fowler's.”
State v. Myers, 509 P.3d 563 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 18× “2d at 140 (expanding coverage of double rule found in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819[b][4] to defendants who had a consolidated trial based on a finding that the charges could have been brought in one charging document); State v.”
State v. Baker, 429 P.3d 240 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 12× “See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6819 (sentencing in multiple conviction cases).”
State v. Brown, 368 P.3d 1101 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 9× “In multiple conviction cases under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6819, a district judge generally has discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences; express exceptions apply for certain mandatory consecutive sentences.”
State v. McClelland, 347 P.3d 211 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 7× “” When a defendant is sentenced to multiple convictions in Kansas, K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6819(b)(2) requires that the district *831 court establish a base sentence for the primary crime.”
State v. Darrah, 442 P.3d 1049 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 4× “But given Darrah's leadership in the planning, coordinating, and carrying out of these serious crimes, *1051 we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6819(b). So we affirm.”
State v. Shank, 369 P.3d 322 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 3× “Standard of review K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6819(b) provides that, absent certain circumstances, “[t]he sentencing judge shall otherwise have discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences in multiple conviction cases.”
State v. Jamerson, 433 P.3d 698 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 3× “21-6802 (the sentencing guidelines in the KSGA apply equally to all offenders in all parts of the state); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6819 (sentencing in multiple conviction cases).”
State v. Jones, 492 P.3d 433 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819(b)(5). Thus, we reverse Jones' convictions for counts One and Three, reverse the panel's decision to reverse Jones' convictions for counts Two and Four, vacate Jones' sentences for all four counts, and remand the matter to the district court for further…”
State v. Dixon, 492 P.3d 455 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 14× “Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819(b)(4), commonly known as the "double rule," the total prison sentence imposed in a case involving multiple convictions arising from multiple counts within an information, complaint, or indictment cannot exceed twice the base sentence.”
Show all 72 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(a) — 10 cases
State v. Young, 490 P.3d 1183 (Kan. 2021). “Our dive begins with the KSGA provision covering sentences for multiple convictions: K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819. That statute is part of the KSGA and article 68.”
State v. Young, 442 P.3d 543 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Vaughn, 472 P.3d 1139 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Young (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Bayha (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(b) — 25 cases
State v. Myers, 509 P.3d 563 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “2d at 140 (expanding coverage of double rule found in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819[b][4] to defendants who had a consolidated trial based on a finding that the charges could have been brought in one charging document); State v.”
State v. Darrah, 442 P.3d 1049 (Kan. 2019). “But given Darrah's leadership in the planning, coordinating, and carrying out of these serious crimes, *1051 we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6819(b). So we affirm.”
State v. Shank, 369 P.3d 322 (Kan. 2016). “Standard of review K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6819(b) provides that, absent certain circumstances, “[t]he sentencing judge shall otherwise have discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences in multiple conviction cases.”
State v. Young, 490 P.3d 1183 (Kan. 2021). “Our dive begins with the KSGA provision covering sentences for multiple convictions: K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819. That statute is part of the KSGA and article 68.”
State v. Fowler, 457 P.3d 927 (Kan. 2020). “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6819 contains the procedures for sentencing in a multiple-conviction case such as Fowler's.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(b)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Collier, 513 P.3d 477 (Kan. 2022).
State v. McMillan, 553 P.3d 296 (Kan. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(b)(2) — 22 cases
State v. Fowler, 457 P.3d 927 (Kan. 2020). “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6819 contains the procedures for sentencing in a multiple-conviction case such as Fowler's.”
State v. Redick, 414 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2018). “Subsection (b) of that statute focuses on "cases where consecutive sentences may be imposed" and provides in part: "(2) The sentencing judge shall establish a base sentence for the primary crime. . . . An off-grid crime shall not be used as the primary crime in determining the…”
State v. Brown, 368 P.3d 1101 (Kan. 2016). “In multiple conviction cases under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6819, a district judge generally has discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences; express exceptions apply for certain mandatory consecutive sentences.”
State v. McClelland, 347 P.3d 211 (Kan. 2015). “” When a defendant is sentenced to multiple convictions in Kansas, K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6819(b)(2) requires that the district *831 court establish a base sentence for the primary crime.”
State v. McMillan, 553 P.3d 296 (Kan. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(b)(3) — 11 cases
State v. Redick, 414 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2018). “Subsection (b) of that statute focuses on "cases where consecutive sentences may be imposed" and provides in part: "(2) The sentencing judge shall establish a base sentence for the primary crime. . . . An off-grid crime shall not be used as the primary crime in determining the…”
State v. Fowler, 457 P.3d 927 (Kan. 2020). “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6819 contains the procedures for sentencing in a multiple-conviction case such as Fowler's.”
State v. Myers, 509 P.3d 563 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “2d at 140 (expanding coverage of double rule found in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819[b][4] to defendants who had a consolidated trial based on a finding that the charges could have been brought in one charging document); State v.”
State v. Kimberlin, 362 P.3d 19 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Martin (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(b)(4) — 25 cases
State v. McClelland, 347 P.3d 211 (Kan. 2015). “” When a defendant is sentenced to multiple convictions in Kansas, K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-6819(b)(2) requires that the district *831 court establish a base sentence for the primary crime.”
State v. Dixon, 492 P.3d 455 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819(b)(4), commonly known as the "double rule," the total prison sentence imposed in a case involving multiple convictions arising from multiple counts within an information, complaint, or indictment cannot exceed twice the base sentence.”
State v. Brown, 368 P.3d 1101 (Kan. 2016). “In multiple conviction cases under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6819, a district judge generally has discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences; express exceptions apply for certain mandatory consecutive sentences.”
State v. Redick, 414 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2018). “Subsection (b) of that statute focuses on "cases where consecutive sentences may be imposed" and provides in part: "(2) The sentencing judge shall establish a base sentence for the primary crime. . . . An off-grid crime shall not be used as the primary crime in determining the…”
State v. Myers, 509 P.3d 563 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “2d at 140 (expanding coverage of double rule found in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819[b][4] to defendants who had a consolidated trial based on a finding that the charges could have been brought in one charging document); State v.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(b)(5) — 22 cases
State v. Jones, 492 P.3d 433 (Kan. 2021). “K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819(b)(5). Thus, we reverse Jones' convictions for counts One and Three, reverse the panel's decision to reverse Jones' convictions for counts Two and Four, vacate Jones' sentences for all four counts, and remand the matter to the district court for further…”
State v. Fowler, 457 P.3d 927 (Kan. 2020). “K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6819 contains the procedures for sentencing in a multiple-conviction case such as Fowler's.”
State v. McMillan, 553 P.3d 296 (Kan. 2024).
State v. Myers, 509 P.3d 563 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “2d at 140 (expanding coverage of double rule found in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6819[b][4] to defendants who had a consolidated trial based on a finding that the charges could have been brought in one charging document); State v.”
State v. Smith (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(b)(6) — 1 case
State v. Phipps (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(b)(8) — 3 cases
State v. Baker, 429 P.3d 240 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018). “See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6819 (sentencing in multiple conviction cases).”
State v. Capps (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Moreno (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(c) — 1 case
State v. Masterson (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(c)(2) — 1 case
State v. McMillan (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
— K.S.A. § 21-6819(c)(3) — 2 cases
State v. Masterson (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. McMillan (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
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.