22-3710.
Kansas prisoner review board; seal, orders, records, reports.
The prisoner review board shall adopt an official seal of which the courts shall take judicial notice. The orders of the board shall not be reviewable except as to compliance with the terms of this act or other applicable laws of this state. The board shall keep a record of its acts and shall notify each institution and the secretary of corrections of its decisions relating to the persons who are or have been confined therein. At the close of each fiscal year, the board shall submit to the governor and to the legislature a report with statistical and other data of its work, including research studies which it may make of probation, sentencing, parole, postrelease supervision or related functions. Such report may be part of the annual report of the department of corrections, so long as such information is presented separately and distinctly.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3710; L. 1972, ch. 317, § 83; L. 1973, ch. 339, § 63; L. 1990, ch. 309, § 16; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 267; L. 2012, ch. 16, § 11; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Branson v. McKune, 3 P.3d 572 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “However, appellant argues K.S.A. 22-3710 prohibits judicial review of the actions of the parole board except when in compliance with applicable statutes, and “K.”
In Re Uphoff, 641 P.2d 406 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982).
“K.S.A. 22-3710. The district court has no authority to substitute its discretion for that of the board in granting parole.”
Torrence v. Kansas Parole Bd., 904 P.2d 581 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995).
“K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 22-3710 states: “The orders of the parole board shall not be renewable except as to compliance with the terms of this act or other applicable laws of this state.”
Walling v. Francisco, 920 P.2d 466 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996).
“2d 147 (1994); see K.S.A. 22-3710. The two statutes in question are K.”
Haney v. Hamilton, 768 P.2d 832 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “In support of its argument, the State urges that the trial court, in entertaining an evidentiary hearing, ignored the judicial scope of review as mandated by K.S.A. 22-3710, and essentially substituted its discretion and judgment for that of the Board.”
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.