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

K.S.A. § 22-3424 (2026)

Judgment and sentence; restitution; duties of court

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

22-3424. Judgment and sentence; restitution; duties of court. (a) The judgment shall be rendered and sentence imposed in open court.

(b) If the verdict or finding is not guilty, judgment shall be rendered immediately and the defendant shall be discharged from custody and the obligation of the defendant's appearance bond.

(c) If the verdict or finding is guilty, judgment shall be rendered and sentence pronounced without unreasonable delay, allowing adequate time for the filing and disposition of post-trial motions and for completion of such presentence investigation as the court may require.

(d) (1) If the verdict or finding is guilty, upon request of the victim or the victim's family and before imposing sentence, the court shall hold a hearing to establish restitution. The defendant may waive the right to the hearing and accept the amount of restitution as established by the court. If the court orders restitution to be paid to the victim or the victim's family, the order shall be enforced as a judgment of restitution pursuant to K.S.A. 20-169, and amendments thereto, and K.S.A. 21-6604(b)(2), and amendments thereto.

(2) (A) The court shall order a person convicted of human trafficking or aggravated human trafficking, K.S.A. 21-3446 or 21-3447, prior to their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5426, and amendments thereto, or commercial sexual exploitation of a child, K.S.A. 21-6422, and amendments thereto, to pay restitution to the victim of the offense for:

(i) Expenses incurred or reasonably certain to be incurred by the victim as a result of the offense, including reasonable attorney fees and costs; and

(ii) an amount equal to three times the greatest of the following, with no reduction for expenses the defendant incurred to maintain the victim:

(a) The gross income to the defendant for, or the value to the defendant of, the victim's labor or services or sexual activity;

(b) the amount the defendant contracted to pay the victim; or

(c) the value of the victim's labor or services or sexual activity, calculated under the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the federal fair labor standards act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., or under K.S.A. 44-1203, and amendments thereto, whichever is higher, even if the provisions do not apply to the victim's labor or services or sexual activity.

(B) The court shall order restitution under subsection (d)(2) even if the victim is unavailable to accept payment of restitution.

(C) If the victim does not claim restitution ordered under subsection (d)(2) for five years after entry of the order, the restitution must be paid to the human trafficking victim assistance fund created by K.S.A. 75-758, and amendments thereto, to help victims.

(e) Before imposing sentence the court shall: (1) Allow the prosecuting attorney to address the court, if the prosecuting attorney so requests; (2) afford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant; (3) allow the victim or such members of the victim's family as the court deems appropriate to address the court, if the victim or the victim's family so requests; and (4) address the defendant personally and ask the defendant if the defendant wishes to make a statement on the defendant's own behalf and to present any evidence in mitigation of punishment.

(f) After imposing sentence in a case which has gone to trial on a plea of not guilty, the court shall advise the defendant of the defendant's right to appeal and of the right of a person who is unable to pay the costs of an appeal to appeal in forma pauperis.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3424; L. 1991, ch. 90, § 2; L. 1993, ch. 166, § 4; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 273; L. 1995, ch. 257, § 3; L. 2015, ch. 94, § 4; L. 2022, ch. 31, § 3; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 122 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Stallings, 163 P.3d 1232 (Kan. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stallings, 163 P.3d 1232 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 33× “Death penalty jurisprudence further supports broadly construing "court" in K.S.A. 22-3424 to include the sentencing jury in a death penalty case.”
State v. Salary, 437 P.3d 953 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 4× “3d 164 (2014) (applying harmless error analysis for violation of statutory rights for failure to comply with K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3424 [e][4] ). Under the harmlessness test where an error implicates a statutory right, the party benefiting from the error must persuade the court…”
State v. Borders, 879 P.2d 620 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 18× “” Defendant’s argument in support of his first issue on appeal is two-pronged: First, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance of the sentencing hearing and, second, he contends that the change in scheduling the sentencing hearing,…”
State v. Shelly, 371 P.3d 820 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 7× “The panel did not believe the Patton court intended to broaden the applicability of the explicit language of tire statutes cited in that case—K.S.A. 22-3424(f) (requiring sentencing court to advise defendant of right to appeal at sentencing even if defendant unable to pay costs)…”
State v. Bryant, 163 P.3d 325 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 17× “K.S.A. 22-3424 generally sets forth the procedure for a district court to follow at sentencing.”
State v. McDaniel, 254 P.3d 534 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 9× “Indeed, each subsection of K.S.A. 22-3424 addresses the process by which the district court shall render judgment and impose sentence.”
State v. Webb, 748 P.2d 875 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 10× “K.S.A. 22-3424(4) states: “Before imposing sentence the court shall afford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant and shall address the defendant personally and ask him if he wishes to make a statement on his own behalf and to present any evidence in…”
State v. Heide, 822 P.2d 59 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 15× “: This first impression criminal case concerns a defendant’s statutory right under K.S.A. 22-3424(4) to address the trial court and to present evidence in mitigation prior to the imposition of sentence.”
Kargus v. State, 169 P.3d 307 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 6× “22-3424(5) (Weeks) (now K.S.A. 22-3424[f]). As we noted previously, K.”
State v. Phillips, 210 P.3d 93 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 5× “22-3405 and K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 22-3424(a), which require felony criminal judgments to be rendered and sentences to be imposed in open *30 court.”
State v. Martin, 429 P.3d 896 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 4× “The defendant may waive the right to the hearing and accept the amount of restitution as established by the court." In short, a convicted criminal defendant has a statutory right to have a hearing on the question of restitution, if desired.”
State v. Arnett, 496 P.3d 928 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 3× “21-6604(b)(2); and only the last sentence of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3424(d)(1). 7. A criminal defendant will not be faced with a civil judgment for criminal restitution unless it has been obtained separately through a civil cause of action.”
Show all 122 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(1) — 5 cases
Guillory v. State, 170 P.3d 403 (Kan. 2007).
Kargus v. State, 169 P.3d 307 (Kan. 2007). “22-3424(5) (Weeks) (now K.S.A. 22-3424[f]). As we noted previously, K.”
State v. Singleton, 104 P.3d 424 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Moses, 607 P.2d 477 (Kan. 1980).
State v. Wilson, 808 P.2d 434 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(3) — 5 cases
State v. Foy, 582 P.2d 281 (Kan. 1978).
State v. Freeman, 689 P.2d 885 (Kan. 1984).
State v. Green, 867 P.2d 366 (Kan. 1994).
State v. Smith, 591 P.2d 1098 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).
In Re Habeas Corpus Application of Lancaster, 879 P.2d 1143 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(4) — 20 cases
State v. Borders, 879 P.2d 620 (Kan. 1994). “” Defendant’s argument in support of his first issue on appeal is two-pronged: First, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance of the sentencing hearing and, second, he contends that the change in scheduling the sentencing hearing,…”
State v. Webb, 748 P.2d 875 (Kan. 1988). “K.S.A. 22-3424(4) states: “Before imposing sentence the court shall afford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant and shall address the defendant personally and ask him if he wishes to make a statement on his own behalf and to present any evidence in…”
State v. Heide, 822 P.2d 59 (Kan. 1991). “: This first impression criminal case concerns a defendant’s statutory right under K.S.A. 22-3424(4) to address the trial court and to present evidence in mitigation prior to the imposition of sentence.”
State v. Bafford, 879 P.2d 613 (Kan. 1994).
State v. Hunt, 894 P.2d 178 (Kan. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(4)(c) — 3 cases
State v. Borders, 879 P.2d 620 (Kan. 1994). “” Defendant’s argument in support of his first issue on appeal is two-pronged: First, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance of the sentencing hearing and, second, he contends that the change in scheduling the sentencing hearing,…”
State v. Bafford, 879 P.2d 613 (Kan. 1994).
State v. Moore, 920 P.2d 431 (Kan. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(4)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Duke, 887 P.2d 110 (Kan. 1994).
State v. Hunt, 894 P.2d 178 (Kan. 1995).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(5) — 10 cases
State v. Mitchell, 642 P.2d 981 (Kan. 1982).
Kargus v. State, 169 P.3d 307 (Kan. 2007). “22-3424(5) (Weeks) (now K.S.A. 22-3424[f]). As we noted previously, K.”
State v. Moses, 607 P.2d 477 (Kan. 1980).
State v. Solomon, 891 P.2d 407 (Kan. 1995).
State v. Osbey, 710 P.2d 676 (Kan. 1985).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(a) — 9 cases
State v. Phillips, 210 P.3d 93 (Kan. 2009). “22-3405 and K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 22-3424(a), which require felony criminal judgments to be rendered and sentences to be imposed in open *30 court.”
State v. Raschke, 219 P.3d 481 (Kan. 2009).
State v. Evans (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Harris, 419 P.3d 69 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Stuart (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(b) — 1 case
State v. Harris, 419 P.3d 69 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(c) — 4 cases
State v. Hall, 319 P.3d 506 (Kan. 2014).
State v. Pressley, 223 P.3d 299 (Kan. 2010).
State v. Campbell, 44 P.3d 349 (Kan. 2002).
State v. Lafayette (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(d) — 12 cases
State v. Bryant, 163 P.3d 325 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “K.S.A. 22-3424 generally sets forth the procedure for a district court to follow at sentencing.”
State v. McDaniel, 254 P.3d 534 (Kan. 2011). “Indeed, each subsection of K.S.A. 22-3424 addresses the process by which the district court shall render judgment and impose sentence.”
State v. Rojas-Marceleno, 285 P.3d 361 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Hall, 247 P.3d 1050 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Long, 281 P.3d 176 (Kan. 2012).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(d)(1) — 8 cases
State v. Arnett, 496 P.3d 928 (Kan. 2021). “21-6604(b)(2); and only the last sentence of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3424(d)(1). 7. A criminal defendant will not be faced with a civil judgment for criminal restitution unless it has been obtained separately through a civil cause of action.”
State v. Martin, 429 P.3d 896 (Kan. 2018). “The defendant may waive the right to the hearing and accept the amount of restitution as established by the court." In short, a convicted criminal defendant has a statutory right to have a hearing on the question of restitution, if desired.”
State v. Robison, 496 P.3d 892 (Kan. 2021).
State v. Owens, 496 P.3d 902 (Kan. 2021).
State v. Wills (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(e) — 15 cases
State v. Stallings, 163 P.3d 1232 (Kan. 2007). “Death penalty jurisprudence further supports broadly construing "court" in K.S.A. 22-3424 to include the sentencing jury in a death penalty case.”
State v. Salary, 437 P.3d 953 (Kan. 2019). “3d 164 (2014) (applying harmless error analysis for violation of statutory rights for failure to comply with K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3424 [e][4] ). Under the harmlessness test where an error implicates a statutory right, the party benefiting from the error must persuade the court…”
State v. Mebane, 91 P.3d 1175 (Kan. 2004).
State v. Cheever, 284 P.3d 1007 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Vanderveen, 915 P.2d 57 (Kan. 1996).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(e)(3) — 1 case
State v. Martin, 429 P.3d 896 (Kan. 2018). “The defendant may waive the right to the hearing and accept the amount of restitution as established by the court." In short, a convicted criminal defendant has a statutory right to have a hearing on the question of restitution, if desired.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(e)(4) — 13 cases
State v. Salary, 437 P.3d 953 (Kan. 2019). “3d 164 (2014) (applying harmless error analysis for violation of statutory rights for failure to comply with K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3424 [e][4] ). Under the harmlessness test where an error implicates a statutory right, the party benefiting from the error must persuade the court…”
State v. Bowen, 915 P.2d 120 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Vanderveen, 915 P.2d 57 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Haney, 323 P.3d 164 (Kan. 2014).
State v. Fulton, 23 P.3d 167 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 22-3424(f) — 23 cases
State v. Shelly, 371 P.3d 820 (Kan. 2016). “The panel did not believe the Patton court intended to broaden the applicability of the explicit language of tire statutes cited in that case—K.S.A. 22-3424(f) (requiring sentencing court to advise defendant of right to appeal at sentencing even if defendant unable to pay costs)…”
State v. Phinney, 122 P.3d 356 (Kan. 2005).
State v. Patton, 195 P.3d 753 (Kan. 2008).
Albright v. State, 251 P.3d 52 (Kan. 2011).
In re I.A., 450 P.3d 347 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
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.