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

K.S.A. § 21-6824 (2026)

Nonprison sanction; certified drug abuse treatment programs; assessment; supervision by community corrections or court services; discharge from program; exceptions to placement in program; transfer of supervision

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

21-6824. Nonprison sanction; certified drug abuse treatment programs; assessment; supervision by community corrections or court services; discharge from program; exceptions to placement in program; transfer of supervision. (a) There is hereby established a nonprison sanction of certified drug abuse treatment programs for certain offenders who are sentenced on or after November 1, 2003. Placement of offenders in certified drug abuse treatment programs by the court shall be limited to placement of adult offenders who meet the requirements of this subsection.

(1) Offenders convicted of a felony violation of K.S.A. 21-5705 or 21-5706, and amendments thereto, whose offense is classified in grid blocks:

(A) 5-C, 5-D, 5-E, 5-F, 5-G, 5-H or 5-I of the sentencing guidelines grid for drug crimes and such offender has no felony conviction of K.S.A. 65-4142, 65-4159, 65-4161, 65-4163 or 65-4164, prior to their repeal, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-36a03, 21-36a05 or 21-36a16, prior to their transfer, or K.S.A. 21-5703, 21-5705 or 21-5716, and amendments thereto, or any substantially similar offense from another jurisdiction; or

(B) 5-A, 5-B, 4-E, 4-F, 4-G, 4-H or 4-I of the sentencing guidelines grid for drug crimes and:

(i) Such offender has no felony conviction of K.S.A. 65-4142, 65-4159, 65-4161, 65-4163 or 65-4164, prior to their repeal, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-36a03, 21-36a05 or 21-36a16, prior to their transfer, or K.S.A. 21-5703, 21-5705 or 21-5716, and amendments thereto, or any substantially similar offense from another jurisdiction;

(ii) the person felonies in the offender's criminal history were severity level 8, 9 or 10 or nongrid offenses of the sentencing guidelines grid for nondrug crimes; and

(iii) the court finds and sets forth with particularity the reasons for finding that the safety of the members of the public will not be jeopardized by such placement in a drug abuse treatment program.

(2) Offenders convicted of a nonperson felony whose offense is classified in grid blocks:

(A) 10-C, 10-D, 10-E, 10-F, 10-G, 10-H, 10-I, 9-C, 9-D, 9-E, 9-F, 9-G, 9-H, 9-I, 8-C, 8-D, 8-E, 8-F, 8-G, 8-H, 8-I, 7-C, 7-D, 7-E, 7-F, 7-G, 7-H or 7-I of the sentencing guidelines grid for nondrug crimes and such offender has no felony conviction of K.S.A. 65-4142, 65-4159, 65-4161, 65-4163 or 65-4164, prior to their repeal, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-36a03, 21-36a05 or 21-36a16, prior to their transfer, or K.S.A. 21-5703, 21-5705 or 21-5716, and amendments thereto, or any substantially similar offense from another jurisdiction; or

(B) 10-A, 10-B, 9-A, 9-B, 8-A, 8-B, 7-A or 7-B of the sentencing guidelines grid for nondrug crimes and:

(i) Such offender has no felony conviction of K.S.A. 65-4142, 65-4159, 65-4161, 65-4163 or 65-4164, prior to their repeal, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-36a03, 21-36a05 or 21-36a16, prior to their transfer, or K.S.A. 21-5703, 21-5705 or 21-5716, and amendments thereto, or any substantially similar offense from another jurisdiction;

(ii) the person felonies in the offender's criminal history were severity level 8, 9 or 10 or nongrid offenses of the sentencing guidelines grid for nondrug crimes; and

(iii) the court finds and sets forth with particularity the reasons for finding that the safety of the members of the public will not be jeopardized by such placement in a drug abuse treatment program.

(b) As a part of the presentence investigation pursuant to K.S.A. 21-6813, and amendments thereto, offenders who meet the requirements of subsection (a), unless otherwise specifically ordered by the court, shall be subject to:

(1) A drug abuse assessment that shall include a clinical interview with a mental health professional and a recommendation concerning drug abuse treatment for the offender; and

(2) a criminal risk-need assessment. The criminal risk-need assessment shall assign a risk status to the offender.

(c) If the offender is assigned a risk status as determined by the drug abuse assessment performed pursuant to subsection (b)(1) and a risk status as determined by the criminal risk-need assessment performed pursuant to subsection (b)(2) that meets the criteria for participation in a drug abuse treatment program as determined by the Kansas sentencing commission, the sentencing court shall commit the offender to treatment in a drug abuse treatment program until the court determines the offender is suitable for discharge by the court. The term of treatment shall not exceed 18 months. The court may extend the term of probation pursuant to K.S.A. 21-6608(c)(3), and amendments thereto. The term of treatment may not exceed the term of probation.

(d) (1) Offenders who are committed to a drug abuse treatment program pursuant to subsection (c) shall be supervised by community correctional services.

(2) Offenders who are not committed to a drug abuse treatment program pursuant to subsection (c) shall be supervised by community correctional services or court services based on the result of the criminal risk assessment.

(3) If the offender is permitted to go from the judicial district of the sentencing court, the court may, pursuant to K.S.A. 21-6610, and amendments thereto:

(A) Transfer supervision of the offender from that judicial district to another; and

(B) either transfer or retain jurisdiction of the offender.

(e) Placement of offenders under subsection (a)(1)(B) or (a)(2)(B) shall be subject to the departure sentencing statutes of the revised Kansas sentencing guidelines act.

(f) (1) Offenders in drug abuse treatment programs shall be discharged from such program if the offender:

(A) Is convicted of a new felony; or

(B) has a pattern of intentional conduct that demonstrates the offender's refusal to comply with or participate in the treatment program, as established by judicial finding.

(2) Offenders who are discharged from such program shall be subject to the revocation provisions of K.S.A. 21-6604(n), and amendments thereto.

(g) As used in this section, "mental health professional" includes licensed social workers, persons licensed to practice medicine and surgery, licensed psychologists, licensed professional counselors or registered alcohol and other drug abuse counselors licensed or certified as addiction counselors who have been certified by the Kansas sentencing commission to treat offenders pursuant to K.S.A. 75-52,144, and amendments thereto.

(h) (1) Offenders who meet the requirements of subsection (a) shall not be subject to the provisions of this section and shall be sentenced as otherwise provided by law, if such offenders:

(A) Are residents of another state and are returning to such state pursuant to the interstate corrections compact or the interstate compact for adult offender supervision;

(B) are not lawfully present in the United States and being detained for deportation; or

(C) do not meet the risk assessment levels provided in subsection (c).

(2) Such sentence shall not be considered a departure and shall not be subject to appeal.

(i) The court may order an offender who otherwise does not meet the requirements of subsection (c) to undergo one additional drug abuse assessment while such offender is on probation. Such offender may be ordered to undergo drug abuse treatment pursuant to subsection (a) if such offender is determined to meet the requirements of subsection (c). The cost of such assessment shall be paid by such offender.

History: L. 2010, ch. 136, § 305; L. 2012, ch. 150, § 38; L. 2018, ch. 112, § 8; L. 2019, ch. 59, § 9; L. 2021, ch. 109, § 5; L. 2022, ch. 73, § 6; L. 2023, ch. 93, § 4; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: State v. Swazey, 357 P.3d 893 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Swazey, 357 P.3d 893 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 20× “He argues the district court imposed an illegal sentence by sentencing him to prison instead of drug treatment pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6824. Facts On June 26, 2014, Swazey pled no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of fleeing or…”
State v. Hambright, 447 P.3d 972 (Kan. 2019). “of up to 12 months in length; (4) in felony cases sentenced at severity level 8 on the sentencing guidelines grid for nondrug crimes, severity level 3 on the sentencing guidelines grid for drug crimes committed prior to July 1, 2012, and severity level 4 of the sentencing…”
State v. Collins, 362 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2015). “idelines grid for drug crimes, if a nonprison sanction is imposed, tire court shall order the defendant to serve a period of probation of up to 12 months in length; *475 (4) in felony cases sentenced at severity level 8 on the sentencing guidelines grid for nondrug crimes,…”
State v. Fox (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 13× “Additionally, the district court gave community corrections discretion to place Fox in a drug abuse treatment program for "up to 18 months" as allowed under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6824. Fox had the same intensive supervising officer (ISO) in 21CR84 and 21CR245.”
State v. McDaniel (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 12× “In particular, McDaniel argues he was eligible for mandatory drug treatment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6824 because the statute uses the plural "felonies" when outlining eligibility restrictions—he asserts that he only had one previous felony conviction, though his misdemeanors…”
State v. Brown (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 9× “2022) (unpublished opinion) (describing assessments used to evaluate eligibility for Senate Bill 123 drug treatment); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6824. Brown had not called to reschedule these appointments.”
State v. Stefan, 444 P.3d 1018 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 11× “He contends that K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6824, which requires that a court sentence certain offenders to drug treatment instead of prison, should have controlled his sentence.”
State v. Nettleton (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 7× “At the plea hearing, Nettleton's attorney reported that she believed he was possibly eligible for drug treatment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6824. As a result, Nettleton completed an alcohol and drug assessment, which recommended that he receive intensive outpatient treatment.”
State v. Ybarra (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “3d 893 (2015) (analyzing a prior version of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6824 with risk status scores that are identical to the current requirements).”
State v. Haggard (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “Haggard does not dispute that she was subject to mandatory drug treatment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6824, which requires the district court to order a drug treatment term of up to 18 months.”
State v. Penn (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “21- 6824(a)(1), offenders convicted of certain felony drug offenses are eligible for a nonprison sanction of certified drug abuse treatment program if they meet the requirements outlined in the statute.”
State v. Fergel (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “But Fergel also acknowledges he received probation because K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6824(c) mandates drug treatment for offenders like him based on his drug abuse assessment and criminal risk status.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(a) — 8 cases
State v. Swazey, 357 P.3d 893 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “He argues the district court imposed an illegal sentence by sentencing him to prison instead of drug treatment pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6824. Facts On June 26, 2014, Swazey pled no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of fleeing or…”
State v. McDaniel (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “In particular, McDaniel argues he was eligible for mandatory drug treatment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6824 because the statute uses the plural "felonies" when outlining eligibility restrictions—he asserts that he only had one previous felony conviction, though his misdemeanors…”
State v. Brown (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “2022) (unpublished opinion) (describing assessments used to evaluate eligibility for Senate Bill 123 drug treatment); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6824. Brown had not called to reschedule these appointments.”
State v. Fox (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “Additionally, the district court gave community corrections discretion to place Fox in a drug abuse treatment program for "up to 18 months" as allowed under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6824. Fox had the same intensive supervising officer (ISO) in 21CR84 and 21CR245.”
State v. Ybarra (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “3d 893 (2015) (analyzing a prior version of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6824 with risk status scores that are identical to the current requirements).”
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(a)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Brown (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “2022) (unpublished opinion) (describing assessments used to evaluate eligibility for Senate Bill 123 drug treatment); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6824. Brown had not called to reschedule these appointments.”
State v. McDaniel (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “In particular, McDaniel argues he was eligible for mandatory drug treatment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6824 because the statute uses the plural "felonies" when outlining eligibility restrictions—he asserts that he only had one previous felony conviction, though his misdemeanors…”
State v. Stefan, 444 P.3d 1018 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “He contends that K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6824, which requires that a court sentence certain offenders to drug treatment instead of prison, should have controlled his sentence.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(a)(2) — 3 cases
State v. McDaniel (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “In particular, McDaniel argues he was eligible for mandatory drug treatment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6824 because the statute uses the plural "felonies" when outlining eligibility restrictions—he asserts that he only had one previous felony conviction, though his misdemeanors…”
State v. Nettleton (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “At the plea hearing, Nettleton's attorney reported that she believed he was possibly eligible for drug treatment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6824. As a result, Nettleton completed an alcohol and drug assessment, which recommended that he receive intensive outpatient treatment.”
State v. Brown (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “2022) (unpublished opinion) (describing assessments used to evaluate eligibility for Senate Bill 123 drug treatment); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6824. Brown had not called to reschedule these appointments.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(a)(l) — 1 case
State v. Swazey, 357 P.3d 893 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “He argues the district court imposed an illegal sentence by sentencing him to prison instead of drug treatment pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6824. Facts On June 26, 2014, Swazey pled no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of fleeing or…”
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(b) — 4 cases
State v. Swazey, 357 P.3d 893 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “He argues the district court imposed an illegal sentence by sentencing him to prison instead of drug treatment pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6824. Facts On June 26, 2014, Swazey pled no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of fleeing or…”
State v. Brown (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “2022) (unpublished opinion) (describing assessments used to evaluate eligibility for Senate Bill 123 drug treatment); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6824. Brown had not called to reschedule these appointments.”
State v. Guillen-Sanchez (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Penn (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “21- 6824(a)(1), offenders convicted of certain felony drug offenses are eligible for a nonprison sanction of certified drug abuse treatment program if they meet the requirements outlined in the statute.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(b)(1) — 1 case
State v. Ybarra (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “3d 893 (2015) (analyzing a prior version of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6824 with risk status scores that are identical to the current requirements).”
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(c) — 8 cases
State v. Swazey, 357 P.3d 893 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “He argues the district court imposed an illegal sentence by sentencing him to prison instead of drug treatment pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6824. Facts On June 26, 2014, Swazey pled no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of fleeing or…”
State v. Stefan, 444 P.3d 1018 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019). “He contends that K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6824, which requires that a court sentence certain offenders to drug treatment instead of prison, should have controlled his sentence.”
State v. McDaniel (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “In particular, McDaniel argues he was eligible for mandatory drug treatment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6824 because the statute uses the plural "felonies" when outlining eligibility restrictions—he asserts that he only had one previous felony conviction, though his misdemeanors…”
State v. Fergel (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). “But Fergel also acknowledges he received probation because K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6824(c) mandates drug treatment for offenders like him based on his drug abuse assessment and criminal risk status.”
State v. Ybarra (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “3d 893 (2015) (analyzing a prior version of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6824 with risk status scores that are identical to the current requirements).”
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(d)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Haggard (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “Haggard does not dispute that she was subject to mandatory drug treatment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6824, which requires the district court to order a drug treatment term of up to 18 months.”
State v. Fox (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “Additionally, the district court gave community corrections discretion to place Fox in a drug abuse treatment program for "up to 18 months" as allowed under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6824. Fox had the same intensive supervising officer (ISO) in 21CR84 and 21CR245.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(e) — 3 cases
State v. Swazey, 357 P.3d 893 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). “He argues the district court imposed an illegal sentence by sentencing him to prison instead of drug treatment pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6824. Facts On June 26, 2014, Swazey pled no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of fleeing or…”
State v. Fergel (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). “But Fergel also acknowledges he received probation because K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6824(c) mandates drug treatment for offenders like him based on his drug abuse assessment and criminal risk status.”
State v. McDaniel (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “In particular, McDaniel argues he was eligible for mandatory drug treatment under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6824 because the statute uses the plural "felonies" when outlining eligibility restrictions—he asserts that he only had one previous felony conviction, though his misdemeanors…”
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(f)(1) — 1 case
State v. Fox (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “Additionally, the district court gave community corrections discretion to place Fox in a drug abuse treatment program for "up to 18 months" as allowed under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6824. Fox had the same intensive supervising officer (ISO) in 21CR84 and 21CR245.”
— K.S.A. § 21-6824(f)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Fox (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “Additionally, the district court gave community corrections discretion to place Fox in a drug abuse treatment program for "up to 18 months" as allowed under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6824. Fox had the same intensive supervising officer (ISO) in 21CR84 and 21CR245.”
State v. Parsons (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Dye, 432 P.3d 111 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
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.