22-2911.
Failure to fulfill diversion agreement; satisfactory fulfillment; records.
(a) If the county or district attorney finds at the termination of the diversion period or any time prior to the termination of the diversion period that the defendant has failed to fulfill the terms of the specific diversion agreement, the county or district attorney shall inform the district court of such finding and the district court, after finding that the defendant has failed to fulfill the terms of the specific diversion agreement at a hearing thereon, shall resume the criminal proceedings on the complaint.
(b) If the defendant has fulfilled the terms of the diversion agreement, the district court shall dismiss with prejudice the criminal charges filed against the defendant.
(c) The county or district attorney shall forward to the Kansas bureau of investigation a record of the fact that a defendant did or did not fulfill the terms of a diversion agreement required to be filed under K.S.A. 22-2909, and amendments thereto. Such record shall be made available upon request to any county, district or city attorney or court.
(d) The county or district attorney shall forward to the division of vehicles of the state department of revenue a record of the fact that a defendant did or did not fulfill the terms of a diversion agreement required to be filed under K.S.A. 22-2909, and amendments thereto. Such record shall be made available to any city, county or district attorney or court.
History:
L. 1978, ch. 131, § 6; L. 1981, ch. 153, § 2; L. 1982, ch. 145, § 2; L. 1982, ch. 144, § 9; L. 1985, ch. 79, § 5; L. 1993, ch. 166, § 3; L. 1998, ch. 131, § 6; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case:
State v. Chamberlain, 120 P.3d 319 (Kan. 2005).
State v. Chamberlain, 120 P.3d 319 (Kan. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-2911(b); see K.S.A. 12-4416(a).”
State v. MacIas, 39 P.3d 85 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “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. Hodgden, 25 P.3d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 22-2911(a). A setting aside of a conviction in Alaska and the entering into a diversion agreement in Kansas differ in one pivotal aspect.”
State v. Reves, 666 P.2d 1190 (Kan. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Section 9 amended K.S.A. 22-2911 to require that a record of participation in a diversion program entered into in lieu of prosecution for a violation of 8-1567 be forwarded to the division of vehicles for future use in habitual violator proceedings or prosecutions for violation…”
State v. McDaniels, 703 P.2d 789 (Kan. 1985).
· cites it 2× “If such a duty existed, the K.S.A. 22-2911 hearing requirement would be rendered meaningless.”
State v. Booze, 712 P.2d 1253 (Kan. 1986).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 22-2911. On November 30, 1984, approximately one month before the end of the diversion, the defendant was again cited for DUI in Sedgwick County, Kansas.”
In re a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Tolle, 856 P.2d 944 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
“8-285 and 8-1567 and amendments to these sections, 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…”
United States v. Porter, 51 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Kan. 1999).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. § 22-2911(a). The PSI here reflects that this statutory procedure was followed in the defendant’s DUI diversion in 1996, and there is nothing offered to show otherwise.”
State v. Scheuerman, 82 P.3d 515 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
“K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-2911(a) and (b). During the delay in adjudication, “the defendant is not required to enter a plea; no trial is held; and the district court does not make a finding that the evidence substantiates the defendant’s guilt.”
State v. Chappell, 729 P.2d 1241 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “) K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 22-2911 states: “(a) If the county or district attorney finds at the termination of the diversion period or any time prior thereto that the defendant has failed to fulfill the terms of the specific diversion agreement, the county or district attorney shall…”
State v. Delaney (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 5× “" In response, the State argues that the diversion agreement was unambiguous; it is consistent with K.S.A. 22-2911(a); and did not give the district court discretion to reinstate diversion.”
State v. Dalton, 895 P.2d 204 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
“22-2911(a) provides: “If the county or district attorney finds at the termination of the diversion period or any time prior thereto that the defendant has failed to fulfill the terms of the specific diversion agreement, the county or district attorney shall inform the district…”
— K.S.A. § 22-2911(1) — 1 case
State v. McDaniels, 703 P.2d 789 (Kan. 1985).
“If such a duty existed, the K.S.A. 22-2911 hearing requirement would be rendered meaningless.”
— K.S.A. § 22-2911(a) — 8 cases
State v. MacIas, 39 P.3d 85 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
“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. Hodgden, 25 P.3d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
“K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 22-2911(a). A setting aside of a conviction in Alaska and the entering into a diversion agreement in Kansas differ in one pivotal aspect.”
United States v. Porter, 51 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Kan. 1999).
“K.S.A. § 22-2911(a). The PSI here reflects that this statutory procedure was followed in the defendant’s DUI diversion in 1996, and there is nothing offered to show otherwise.”
State v. Scheuerman, 82 P.3d 515 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
“K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-2911(a) and (b). During the delay in adjudication, “the defendant is not required to enter a plea; no trial is held; and the district court does not make a finding that the evidence substantiates the defendant’s guilt.”
State v. Delaney (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
“" In response, the State argues that the diversion agreement was unambiguous; it is consistent with K.S.A. 22-2911(a); and did not give the district court discretion to reinstate diversion.”
— K.S.A. § 22-2911(b) — 4 cases
State v. Chamberlain, 120 P.3d 319 (Kan. 2005).
“” K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-2911(b); see K.S.A. 12-4416(a).”
State v. MacIas, 39 P.3d 85 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
“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. Hodgden, 25 P.3d 138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
“K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 22-2911(a). A setting aside of a conviction in Alaska and the entering into a diversion agreement in Kansas differ in one pivotal aspect.”
— K.S.A. § 22-2911(c) — 1 case
State v. Chamberlain, 120 P.3d 319 (Kan. 2005).
“” K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-2911(b); see K.S.A. 12-4416(a).”
— K.S.A. § 22-2911(d) — 1 case
State v. Booze, 712 P.2d 1253 (Kan. 1986).
“K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 22-2911. On November 30, 1984, approximately one month before the end of the diversion, the defendant was again cited for DUI in Sedgwick County, Kansas.”
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.