K.S.A. » Chapter 22
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 22-2907 (2026)

Diversion agreements authorized; policies and guidelines by district attorney; background information; right to counsel; supervision of persons subject to a diversion agreement by court services or community corrections subject to a memorandum of understanding

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

22-2907. Diversion agreements authorized; policies and guidelines by district attorney; background information; right to counsel; supervision of persons subject to a diversion agreement by court services or community corrections subject to a memorandum of understanding. (a) After a complaint has been filed charging a defendant with commission of a crime and prior to conviction thereof, and after the district attorney has considered the factors listed in K.S.A. 22-2908, if it appears to the district attorney that diversion of the defendant would be in the interests of justice and of benefit to the defendant and the community, the district attorney may propose a diversion agreement to the defendant. The terms of each diversion agreement shall be established by the district attorney in accordance with K.S.A. 22-2909, and amendments thereto.

(b) Each district attorney shall adopt written policies and guidelines for the implementation of a diversion program in accordance with this act. Such policies and guidelines shall provide for a diversion conference and other procedures in those cases where the district attorney elects to offer diversion in lieu of further criminal proceedings on the complaint.

(c) Each defendant shall be informed in writing of the diversion program and the policies and guidelines adopted by the district attorney. The district attorney may require any defendant requesting diversion to provide information regarding prior criminal charges, education, work experience and training, family, residence in the community, medical history, including any psychiatric or psychological treatment or counseling, and other information relating to the diversion program. In all cases, the defendant shall be present and shall have the right to be represented by counsel at the diversion conference with the district attorney.

(d) (1) A county or district attorney may enter into a memorandum of understanding with the chief judge of a judicial district or community correctional services to assist with supervision and monitoring of persons who have entered into a diversion agreement. The county or district attorney shall retain authority over whether a defendant is given the option to enter into a diversion agreement and whether the defendant's diversion agreement will be revoked.

(2) A memorandum of understanding shall include provisions related to:

(A) Determining the level of supervision needed for a defendant;

(B) use of a criminal risk-need assessment;

(C) payment of costs for supervision; and

(D) waiver of the supervision fee established in this subsection.

(3) (A) When a person who has entered into a diversion agreement is supervised pursuant to a memorandum of understanding under this subsection, the person shall pay a supervision fee in the amount established in K.S.A. 21-6607(c)(2)(A) for misdemeanor or felony post-conviction supervision, as appropriate for the crime charged.

(B) The diversion supervision fee imposed by this paragraph shall be charged and collected by the county or district attorney.

(C) All moneys collected pursuant to this section shall be paid into the county general fund and used to fund the costs of diversion supervision performed pursuant to a memorandum of understanding under this subsection.

(D) The diversion supervision fee specified by this paragraph may be reduced or waived by the county or district attorney in accordance with a memorandum of understanding under this subsection.

(4) When a person who has entered into a diversion agreement is supervised pursuant to a memorandum of understanding under this subsection, the person shall pay the actual costs of any urinalysis testing required as a term of supervision. Payments for urinalysis testing shall be remitted to the county treasurer for deposit in the county general fund. The costs of urinalysis testing may be reduced or waived by the county or district attorney.

(5) The office of judicial administration may develop guidelines regarding the content of a memorandum of understanding between a county or district attorney and the chief judge of a judicial district and the administration of a supervision program operating pursuant to such memorandum of understanding.

History: L. 1978, ch. 131, § 2; L. 2021, ch. 109, § 6; L. 2024, ch. 96, § 9; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: State v. Greenlee, 620 P.2d 1132 (Kan. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Greenlee, 620 P.2d 1132 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 22-2906 et seq. Associate Judge Elliott Fry heard defendant’s pretrial motions and held K.”
State v. Woodward, 202 P.3d 15 (Kan. 2009). “” K.S.A. 22-2907(1). Woodward’s claim that the prosecutor used his statements to bring charges against him runs counter to the requirement that the complaint must have been filed before the diversion is proposed.”
In re L.M., 186 P.3d 164 (Kan. 2008). “38-2346(a) with K.S.A. 22-2907(1). In addition, the immediate intervention program statute authorizes the establishment of local programs which provide for intake and assessment workers or county or district attorneys to refer cases directly to youth courts, restorative justice…”
State v. Haug, 699 P.2d 535 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 2× “Haug entered into a one-year diversion agreement (K.S.A. 22-2907) with the district attorney which he successfully completed and the complaint was dismissed July 9, 1981.”
State v. Hodgden, 25 P.3d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 22-2907(1). If the defendant fulfills the terms of the agreement, no conviction is entered, and the charges are dismissed with prejudice.”
State v. Chamberlain, 120 P.3d 319 (Kan. 2005). “K.S.A. 22-2907(l); see K.S.A. 12-4414(a).”
State v. MacIas, 39 P.3d 85 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “A defendant is not required to enter a plea to the criminal charge as a condition for diversion.”
United States v. Porter, 51 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Kan. 1999). · cites it 4× “In the context of the Sentencing Guidelines, this court concludes that the diversion agreement process outlined in K.S.A. §§ 22-2907 et seq. constitutes a deferred prosecution, not a deferred adjudication.”
State v. McDaniels, 703 P.2d 789 (Kan. 1985). “On April 27, 1984, McDaniels was granted a twelve-month diversion, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2907. The diversion agreement provided that the charges against the defendant would be dismissed with prejudice after twelve months, if he complied with certain specific conditions.”
State v. Scheuerman, 82 P.3d 515 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “Indeed, Scheuerman does not complain about the prosecutor’s dismissal of three counts against him, in lieu of including those charges in his diversion agreement.”
State v. Gibson, 651 P.2d 949 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “2d 1132 (1980), considered standards and guidelines established by the legislature concerning diversion programs (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 22-2907 and -2908). The Supreme Court said: “In determining whether or not a usurpation of powers exists a court should consider (a) the essential…”
State v. Tims, 317 P.3d 115 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Statutory Right to Counsel Although there is not a constitutional right to counsel during DUI diversion proceedings, the Kansas statutes governing DUI diversion agreements in both district court and municipal court include language regarding a statutory right to counsel: “[T]he…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 22-2907(1) — 10 cases
State v. Woodward, 202 P.3d 15 (Kan. 2009). “” K.S.A. 22-2907(1). Woodward’s claim that the prosecutor used his statements to bring charges against him runs counter to the requirement that the complaint must have been filed before the diversion is proposed.”
In re L.M., 186 P.3d 164 (Kan. 2008). “38-2346(a) with K.S.A. 22-2907(1). In addition, the immediate intervention program statute authorizes the establishment of local programs which provide for intake and assessment workers or county or district attorneys to refer cases directly to youth courts, restorative justice…”
State v. MacIas, 39 P.3d 85 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “A defendant is not required to enter a plea to the criminal charge as a condition for diversion.”
State v. Hodgden, 25 P.3d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “K.S.A. 22-2907(1). If the defendant fulfills the terms of the agreement, no conviction is entered, and the charges are dismissed with prejudice.”
United States v. Porter, 51 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Kan. 1999). “In the context of the Sentencing Guidelines, this court concludes that the diversion agreement process outlined in K.S.A. §§ 22-2907 et seq. constitutes a deferred prosecution, not a deferred adjudication.”
— K.S.A. § 22-2907(2) — 1 case
State v. Kacsir, 251 P.3d 632 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 22-2907(3) — 1 case
State v. Tims, 317 P.3d 115 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Statutory Right to Counsel Although there is not a constitutional right to counsel during DUI diversion proceedings, the Kansas statutes governing DUI diversion agreements in both district court and municipal court include language regarding a statutory right to counsel: “[T]he…”
— K.S.A. § 22-2907(a) — 2 cases
State v. Hodgden, 25 P.3d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “K.S.A. 22-2907(1). If the defendant fulfills the terms of the agreement, no conviction is entered, and the charges are dismissed with prejudice.”
State v. Delaney (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 22-2907(l) — 1 case
State v. Chamberlain, 120 P.3d 319 (Kan. 2005). “K.S.A. 22-2907(l); see K.S.A. 12-4414(a).”
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.