22-2910.
Conditioning diversion on plea prohibited; inadmissibility of agreement; other matters.
No defendant shall be required to enter any plea to a criminal charge as a condition for diversion. No statements made by the defendant or counsel in any diversion conference or in any other discussion of a proposed diversion agreement shall be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings on crimes charged or facts alleged in the complaint. Except for sentencing proceedings and as otherwise provided in K.S.A. 22-2909(c), and amendments thereto, and as otherwise provided in K.S.A. 8-285 and 8-1567, and amendments thereto, the following shall not be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings which are resumed under K.S.A. 22-2911: (1) Participation in a diversion program; (2) the facts of such participation; or (3) the diversion agreement entered into.
History:
L. 1978, ch. 131, § 5; L. 1982, ch. 144, § 8; L. 2012, ch. 172, § 34; L. 2018, ch. 106, § 30; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case:
State v. Woodward, 202 P.3d 15 (Kan. 2009).
State v. Woodward, 202 P.3d 15 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 6× “” Additionally, Woodward asserts that the prosecutor violated K.S.A. 22-2910 and that this issue is based upon newly discovered evidence because he just learned *299 of that statute’s existence.”
State v. Davisson, 370 P.3d 423 (Kan. 2016).
“According to the defendants pro se supplemental appellate brief, the new “evidence” was his recent discovery of K.S.A. 22-2910. At the time Woodward entered his plea in 1991, this statute provided that defendants wei'e not required to plead to criminal charges as a condition for…”
State v. Chamberlain, 120 P.3d 319 (Kan. 2005).
“” K.S.A. 22-2910; see K.S.A. 12-4417. “[E]ntering into a diversion agreement pursuant to K.”
State v. MacIas, 39 P.3d 85 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
“K.S.A. 22-2910. If the prosecutor finds the defendant has failed to fulfill the diversion agreement, the district court is notified so it can make a determination of whether the defendant has failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement.”
State v. Scheuerman, 82 P.3d 515 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Ultimately, resolution of the issue will require an interpretation of K.S.A. 22-2910; statutory construction is also a legal question, subject to unlimited review.”
United States v. Porter, 51 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Kan. 1999).
· cites it 4× “” K.S.A. § 22-2910. Finally, if the district court finds that the defendant has failed to fulfill the terms of the diversion agreement, then the criminal *1170 proceedings on the complaint resume.”
State v. Reves, 666 P.2d 1190 (Kan. 1983).
“K.S.A. 22-2910, concerning the admissibility of diversion agreements in evidence, was amended by Section 8 to allow certain evidence concerning the diversion agreement to be admissible in a prosecution for violation of 8-1567 resumed for failure to comply with the terms of the…”
State v. Clevenger, 683 P.2d 1272 (Kan. 1984).
“See K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 22-2910. If, however, the program is not completed, the defendant is prosecuted and the program is then not the final action in the case.”
State v. Richardson, 494 P.3d 1280 (Kan. 2021).
“21-4624(3) because the district court allowed into evidence at the sentencing hearing a prior criminal diversion agreement, which violates certain federal and state constitutional provisions and K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 22-2910. About a month after this filing, Richardson filed an…”
State v. Booze, 712 P.2d 1253 (Kan. 1986).
“Since the defendant would not have entered a guilty plea prior to entering into diversion (K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 22-2910), it is possible the defendant may be acquitted on the charge.”
In re a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Tolle, 856 P.2d 944 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
“K.S.A. 22-2910 reads as follows: “No defendant shall be required to enter any plea to a criminal charge as a condition for diversion.”
State v. Raikes, 313 P.3d 94 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).
“Before sentencing, Raikes moved the court to declare the diversion contract void and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the diversion agreement required him to plead no contest to the DUI in violation of 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.