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

K.S.A. § 22-3716 (2026)

Arrest for violating condition of probation, assignment to community corrections, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction, procedure; time limitation on issuing warrant; limitations on serving sentence in department of corrections' facility or serving period of postrelease supervision, exceptions

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

22-3716. Arrest for violating condition of probation, assignment to community corrections, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction, procedure; time limitation on issuing warrant; limitations on serving sentence in department of corrections' facility or serving period of postrelease supervision, exceptions. (a) At any time during probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or pursuant to subsection (e) for defendants who committed a crime prior to July 1, 1993, and at any time when a defendant is serving a nonprison sanction for a crime committed on or after July 1, 1993, or pursuant to subsection (e), the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a defendant for violation of any of the conditions of release or assignment, a notice to appear to answer to a charge of violation or a violation of the defendant's nonprison sanction. The notice shall be personally served upon the defendant. The warrant shall authorize all officers named in the warrant to return the defendant to the custody of the court or to any certified detention facility designated by the court. Any court services officer or community correctional services officer may arrest the defendant without a warrant or may deputize any other officer with power of arrest to do so by giving the officer a written or verbal statement setting forth that the defendant has, in the judgment of the court services officer or community correctional services officer, violated the conditions of the defendant's release or a nonprison sanction. A written statement delivered to the official in charge of a county jail or other place of detention shall be sufficient warrant for the detention of the defendant. After making an arrest, the court services officer or community correctional services officer shall present to the detaining authorities a similar statement of the circumstances of violation. Provisions regarding release on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable to defendants arrested under these provisions.

(b) (1) Upon arrest and detention pursuant to subsection (a), the court services officer or community correctional services officer shall immediately notify the court and shall submit in writing a report showing in what manner the defendant has violated the conditions of release or assignment or a nonprison sanction.

(2) Unless the defendant, after being apprised of the right to a hearing by the supervising court services or community correctional services officer, waives such hearing, the court shall cause the defendant to be brought before it without unnecessary delay for a hearing on the violation charged. The hearing shall be in open court and the state shall have the burden of establishing the violation. The defendant shall have the right to be represented by counsel and shall be informed by the judge that, if the defendant is financially unable to obtain counsel, an attorney will be appointed to represent the defendant. The defendant shall have the right to present the testimony of witnesses and other evidence on the defendant's behalf. Relevant written statements made under oath may be admitted and considered by the court along with other evidence presented at the hearing.

(3) (A) Except as otherwise provided, if the original crime of conviction was a felony, other than a felony specified in K.S.A. 21-6804(i), and amendments thereto, and a violation is established, the court may impose the violation sanctions as provided in subsection (c)(1).

(B) Except as otherwise provided, if the original crime of conviction was a misdemeanor or a felony specified in K.S.A. 21-6804(i), and amendments thereto, and a violation is established, the court may:

(i) Continue or modify the probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction and impose confinement in a county jail not to exceed 60 days. If an offender is serving multiple probation terms concurrently, any confinement periods imposed shall be imposed concurrently;

(ii) impose an intermediate sanction of confinement in a county jail, to be imposed as a two-day or three-day consecutive period. The total of all such sanctions imposed pursuant to this subparagraph and subsection (b)(4) shall not exceed 18 total days during the term of supervision, except as provided in subsection (h); or

(iii) revoke the probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction and require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence, and, if imposition of sentence was suspended, may impose any sentence that might originally have been imposed.

(4) Except as otherwise provided, if the defendant waives the right to a hearing, the following sanctions may be imposed without further order of the court:

(A) If the defendant was on probation at the time of the violation, the defendant's supervising court services officer, with the concurrence of the chief court services officer, may impose an intermediate sanction of confinement in a county jail, to be imposed as a two-day or three-day consecutive period. The total of all such sanctions imposed pursuant to this subparagraph and subsections (b)(4)(B) and (c)(1)(B) shall not exceed 18 total days during the term of supervision, except as provided in subsection (h); and

(B) if the defendant was assigned to a community correctional services program at the time of the violation, the defendant's community corrections officer, with the concurrence of the community corrections director, may impose an intermediate sanction of confinement in a county jail, to be imposed as a two-day or three-day consecutive period. The total of all such sanctions imposed pursuant to this subparagraph and subsections (b)(4)(A) and (c)(1)(B) shall not exceed 18 total days during the term of supervision, except as provided in subsection (h).

(c) (1) Except as otherwise provided, if the original crime of conviction was a felony, other than a felony specified in K.S.A. 21-6804(i), and amendments thereto, and a violation is established, the court may impose the following sanctions:

(A) Continuation or modification of the release conditions of the probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction;

(B) continuation or modification of the release conditions of the probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction and an intermediate sanction of confinement in a county jail to be imposed as a two-day or three-day consecutive period. The total of all such sanctions imposed pursuant to this subparagraph and subsection (b)(4) shall not exceed 18 total days during the term of supervision, except as provided in subsection (h); or

(C) if the violator already had a sanction imposed pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(B) related to the crime for which the original supervision was imposed, revocation of the probation, assignment to a community corrections services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction and requiring such violator to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence and, if imposition of sentence was suspended, imposition of any sentence that might originally have been imposed.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (c)(3) and (c)(7), no offender for whom a violation of conditions of release or assignment or a nonprison sanction has been established as provided in this section shall be required to serve any time for the sentence imposed or which might originally have been imposed in a state facility in the custody of the secretary of corrections for such violation, unless such person has already had at least one prior assignment to a community correctional services program related to the crime for which the original sentence was imposed.

(3) The provisions of subsection (c)(2) shall not apply to adult felony offenders as described in K.S.A. 75-5291(a)(3), and amendments thereto.

(4) The court may require an offender for whom a violation of conditions of release or assignment or a nonprison sanction has been established as provided in this section to serve any time for the sentence imposed or which might originally have been imposed in a state facility in the custody of the secretary of corrections without a prior assignment to a community correctional services program if the court finds and sets forth with particularity the reasons for finding that the safety of the members of the public will be jeopardized or that the welfare of the inmate will not be served by such assignment to a community correctional services program.

(5) When a new felony is committed while the offender is on probation or assignment to a community correctional services program, the new sentence shall be imposed consecutively pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 21-6606, and amendments thereto, and the court may sentence the offender to imprisonment for the new conviction, even when the new crime of conviction otherwise presumes a nonprison sentence. In this event, imposition of a prison sentence for the new crime does not constitute a departure.

(6) A violation sanction imposed pursuant to subsection (c)(1) shall not be longer than the amount of time remaining on the offender's underlying prison sentence.

(7) The court may revoke the probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction of an offender pursuant to subsection (c)(1) without having previously imposed a sanction pursuant to subsection (c)(1) if:

(A) The court finds and sets forth with particularity the reasons for finding that the safety of members of the public will be jeopardized or that the welfare of the offender will not be served by such sanction;

(B) the probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction was originally granted as the result of a dispositional departure granted by the sentencing court pursuant to K.S.A. 21-6815, and amendments thereto;

(C) the offender commits a new felony or misdemeanor while the offender is on probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction; or

(D) the offender absconds from supervision while the offender is on probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction.

(8) If an offender is serving multiple probation terms concurrently, any violation sanctions imposed pursuant to subsection (c)(1), or any sanction imposed pursuant to subsection (c)(9), shall be imposed concurrently.

(9) If the original crime of conviction was a felony, except for violations of K.S.A. 8-1567 or 8-2,144, and amendments thereto, and the court makes a finding that the offender has committed one or more violations of the release conditions of the probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction, the court may impose confinement in a county jail not to exceed 60 days upon each such finding. Such confinement is separate and distinct from the violation sanctions provided in subsection (c)(1) and shall not be imposed at the same time as any such violation sanction.

(10) The violation sanctions provided in this subsection shall apply to any violation of conditions of release or assignment or a nonprison sanction occurring on and after July 1, 2013, regardless of when the offender was sentenced for the original crime or committed the original crime for which sentenced.

(d) A defendant who is on probation, assigned to a community correctional services program, under suspension of sentence or serving a nonprison sanction and for whose return a warrant has been issued by the court shall be considered a fugitive from justice if it is found that the warrant cannot be served. If it appears that the defendant has violated the provisions of the defendant's release or assignment or a nonprison sanction, the court shall determine whether the time from the issuing of the warrant to the date of the defendant's arrest, or any part of it, shall be counted as time served on probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspended sentence or pursuant to a nonprison sanction.

(e) The court shall have 30 days following the date probation, assignment to a community correctional service program, suspension of sentence or a nonprison sanction was to end to issue a warrant for the arrest or notice to appear for the defendant to answer a charge of a violation of the conditions of probation, assignment to a community correctional service program, suspension of sentence or a nonprison sanction.

(f) For crimes committed on and after July 1, 2013, a felony offender whose nonprison sanction is revoked pursuant to subsection (c) or whose underlying prison term expires while serving a sanction pursuant to subsection (c)(1) shall serve a period of postrelease supervision upon the completion of the prison portion of the underlying sentence.

(g) Offenders who have been sentenced pursuant to K.S.A. 21-6824, and amendments thereto, and who subsequently violate a condition of the drug and alcohol abuse treatment program shall be subject to an additional nonprison sanction for any such subsequent violation. Such nonprison sanctions shall include, but not be limited to, up to 60 days in a county jail, fines, community service, intensified treatment, house arrest and electronic monitoring.

(h) If the court continues or modifies the probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, suspension of sentence or nonprison sanction, pursuant to subsection (b) or (c), the court shall authorize an additional 18 days of sanction time in a county jail to be reserved for sanctions as set forth in subsection (b)(3), (b)(4) or (c)(1).

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3716; L. 1972, ch. 317, § 89; L. 1984, ch. 112, § 9; L. 1986, ch. 123, § 24; L. 1990, ch. 112, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 301; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 198; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 65; L. 2000, ch. 182, § 8; L. 2002, ch. 177, § 1; L. 2003, ch. 135, § 6; L. 2008, ch. 183, § 8; L. 2009, ch. 143, § 11; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 135; L. 2013, ch. 76, § 5; L. 2014, ch. 102, § 8; L. 2016, ch. 97, § 3; L. 2017, ch. 92, § 8; L. 2018, ch. 106, § 31; L. 2019, ch. 59, § 10; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 700 cases (404 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 62× “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Dooley, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 47× “Dooley argues that the district court erred in imposing the underlying prison term because the district court failed to base its decision on a statutory exception that would have authorized the court to bypass the intermediate probation violation sanctions mandated by K.S.A.…”
State v. Wilson, 501 P.3d 885 (Kan. 2022). · cites it 35× “When an appellate court holds that a district court abused its discretion by not following the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, the correct disposition is to reverse the decision and remand the case to the district court with directions to ensure the statute is…”
State v. Tafolla, 508 P.3d 351 (Kan. 2022). · cites it 10× “Because Tafolla's argument requires interpretation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716, this court exercises unlimited review.”
State v. Sandoval, 425 P.3d 365 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 23× “Sandoval had also claimed that a remand to the district court for a new disposition hearing was required because his ultimate postrelease supervision period was not lesser but greater.”
State v. Gordon, 66 P.3d 903 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 26× “21-4611 and K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-3716, concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to extend the defendants’ probations and further concluded that the extension of Scribner’s probation without a hearing was contrary to law.”
State v. Coleman, 460 P.3d 828 (Kan. 2020). · cites it 8× “Subsection (c)(9)(B) was enacted as a part of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716, which states: "(c)(1) Except as otherwise provided, if the original crime of conviction was a felony, other than a felony specified in K.”
State v. Skolaut, 182 P.3d 1231 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 13× “: The district court refused to consider, for any probation-related purpose, Kenneth Skolaut’s conduct occurring after his probation term but during the pendency of probation violation proceedings under K.S.A. 22-3716. The State appealed the ruling on a question reserved which…”
State v. McCroy, 486 P.3d 618 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 21× “A district court's noncompliance with the graduated sanctioning scheme set forth in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716 does not fall within the definition of an illegal sentence under K.”
State v. McKnight, 257 P.3d 339 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 19× “Any Lesser Sentence K.S.A. 22-3716(b) authorizes a trial court revoking a defendant’s probation to “require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence.”
State v. Kurtz, 340 P.3d 509 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 29× “Thus, the only way that K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3716 could apply to Kurtz’ sentence is if it was meant to operate retroactively.”
State v. Dominguez, 473 P.3d 932 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 15× “The 2019 amendment to the intermediate sanctioning scheme at K.S.A. 22-3716 does not apply retroactively to probation violators whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the amendment.”
Show all 700 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(1) — 3 cases
State v. Gordon, 66 P.3d 903 (Kan. 2003). “21-4611 and K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-3716, concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to extend the defendants’ probations and further concluded that the extension of Scribner’s probation without a hearing was contrary to law.”
State v. Williams, 884 P.2d 743 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Grimsley, 808 P.2d 1387 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(2) — 15 cases
State v. Yura, 825 P.2d 523 (Kan. 1992).
State v. Carr, 53 P.3d 843 (Kan. 2002).
State v. Carter, 614 P.2d 1007 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
Andrews v. State, 720 P.2d 227 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Babcock, 597 P.2d 1117 (Kan. 1979).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(3) — 2 cases
State v. Fowler, 710 P.2d 1268 (Kan. 1985).
State v. Palmer, 942 P.2d 19 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(4) — 1 case
State v. Freeman, 822 P.2d 68 (Kan. 1991).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(8) — 1 case
State v. Ehrlich, 189 P.3d 491 (Kan. 2008).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(A) — 1 case
State v. Fox (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(a) — 22 cases
State v. Skolaut, 182 P.3d 1231 (Kan. 2008). “: The district court refused to consider, for any probation-related purpose, Kenneth Skolaut’s conduct occurring after his probation term but during the pendency of probation violation proceedings under K.S.A. 22-3716. The State appealed the ruling on a question reserved which…”
State v. Gary, 144 P.3d 634 (Kan. 2006).
State v. Hall, 195 P.3d 220 (Kan. 2008).
State v. Darkis, 502 P.3d 1045 (Kan. 2022).
State v. Martinez, 165 P.3d 1050 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b) — 92 cases
State v. Sandoval, 425 P.3d 365 (Kan. 2018). “Sandoval had also claimed that a remand to the district court for a new disposition hearing was required because his ultimate postrelease supervision period was not lesser but greater.”
State v. McKnight, 257 P.3d 339 (Kan. 2011). “Any Lesser Sentence K.S.A. 22-3716(b) authorizes a trial court revoking a defendant’s probation to “require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence.”
Abasolo v. State, 160 P.3d 471 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Cisneros, 212 P.3d 246 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Jones, 433 P.3d 193 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(1) — 6 cases
State v. Lyon, 471 P.3d 716 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. McClure (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Miner (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. McNellis, 444 P.3d 1017 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Stine (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(1)(B)(iii) — 1 case
State v. Hill (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(2) — 17 cases
State v. Lloyd, 375 P.3d 1013 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Gonzalez, 457 P.3d 938 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Brown, 357 P.3d 296 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Fox (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Kendrick (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(3) — 1 case
State v. Banning, 125 P.3d 573 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(3)(A) — 3 cases
State v. Raimo (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Palacio (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Moser (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(3)(A)(iii) — 1 case
State v. Griffin (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(3)(B) — 13 cases
State v. Sandoval, 425 P.3d 365 (Kan. 2018). “Sandoval had also claimed that a remand to the district court for a new disposition hearing was required because his ultimate postrelease supervision period was not lesser but greater.”
State v. Galloway (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Castillo (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Dillon (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Deffenbaugh (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(3)(B)(i) — 6 cases
State v. Dunn (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Ramirez (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Cooper (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Davidson (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Lehl (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(3)(B)(ii) — 1 case
State v. Ponder (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(3)(B)(iii) — 16 cases
State v. Sandoval, 425 P.3d 365 (Kan. 2018). “Sandoval had also claimed that a remand to the district court for a new disposition hearing was required because his ultimate postrelease supervision period was not lesser but greater.”
State v. Roth, 424 P.3d 529 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Jones, 433 P.3d 193 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Trevitt (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Potter (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(4) — 6 cases
State v. Dooley, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018). “Dooley argues that the district court erred in imposing the underlying prison term because the district court failed to base its decision on a statutory exception that would have authorized the court to bypass the intermediate probation violation sanctions mandated by K.S.A.…”
State v. McCroy, 486 P.3d 618 (Kan. 2021). “A district court's noncompliance with the graduated sanctioning scheme set forth in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716 does not fall within the definition of an illegal sentence under K.”
State v. Baker (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Whitehead-King (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Benjamin (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(4)(A) — 10 cases
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Wilson, 501 P.3d 885 (Kan. 2022). “When an appellate court holds that a district court abused its discretion by not following the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, the correct disposition is to reverse the decision and remand the case to the district court with directions to ensure the statute is…”
State v. McRoberts, 567 P.3d 905 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Wilson (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Deffenbaugh (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(b)(4)(B) — 6 cases
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Wilson, 501 P.3d 885 (Kan. 2022). “When an appellate court holds that a district court abused its discretion by not following the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, the correct disposition is to reverse the decision and remand the case to the district court with directions to ensure the statute is…”
State v. Whitehead-King (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Cole (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Wilson (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c) — 130 cases
State v. Dooley, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018). “Dooley argues that the district court erred in imposing the underlying prison term because the district court failed to base its decision on a statutory exception that would have authorized the court to bypass the intermediate probation violation sanctions mandated by K.S.A.…”
State v. Dominguez, 473 P.3d 932 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “The 2019 amendment to the intermediate sanctioning scheme at K.S.A. 22-3716 does not apply retroactively to probation violators whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the amendment.”
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Huckey, 348 P.3d 997 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. McGill, 340 P.3d 515 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(1) — 63 cases
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Tafolla, 508 P.3d 351 (Kan. 2022). “Because Tafolla's argument requires interpretation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716, this court exercises unlimited review.”
State v. Dooley, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018). “Dooley argues that the district court erred in imposing the underlying prison term because the district court failed to base its decision on a statutory exception that would have authorized the court to bypass the intermediate probation violation sanctions mandated by K.S.A.…”
State v. Wilson, 501 P.3d 885 (Kan. 2022). “When an appellate court holds that a district court abused its discretion by not following the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, the correct disposition is to reverse the decision and remand the case to the district court with directions to ensure the statute is…”
State v. Duran, 445 P.3d 761 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(1)(A) — 39 cases
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Wilson, 501 P.3d 885 (Kan. 2022). “When an appellate court holds that a district court abused its discretion by not following the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, the correct disposition is to reverse the decision and remand the case to the district court with directions to ensure the statute is…”
State v. Fox (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Granados (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Palacio (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(1)(B) — 59 cases
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Kurtz, 340 P.3d 509 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Thus, the only way that K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3716 could apply to Kurtz’ sentence is if it was meant to operate retroactively.”
State v. Dooley, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018). “Dooley argues that the district court erred in imposing the underlying prison term because the district court failed to base its decision on a statutory exception that would have authorized the court to bypass the intermediate probation violation sanctions mandated by K.S.A.…”
State v. Wilson, 501 P.3d 885 (Kan. 2022). “When an appellate court holds that a district court abused its discretion by not following the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, the correct disposition is to reverse the decision and remand the case to the district court with directions to ensure the statute is…”
State v. Gonzalez, 457 P.3d 938 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(1)(C) — 102 cases
State v. Dooley, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018). “Dooley argues that the district court erred in imposing the underlying prison term because the district court failed to base its decision on a statutory exception that would have authorized the court to bypass the intermediate probation violation sanctions mandated by K.S.A.…”
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Wilson, 501 P.3d 885 (Kan. 2022). “When an appellate court holds that a district court abused its discretion by not following the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, the correct disposition is to reverse the decision and remand the case to the district court with directions to ensure the statute is…”
State v. Dominguez, 473 P.3d 932 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “The 2019 amendment to the intermediate sanctioning scheme at K.S.A. 22-3716 does not apply retroactively to probation violators whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the amendment.”
State v. Dooley, 491 P.3d 1250 (Kan. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(1)(D) — 15 cases
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Dooley, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018). “Dooley argues that the district court erred in imposing the underlying prison term because the district court failed to base its decision on a statutory exception that would have authorized the court to bypass the intermediate probation violation sanctions mandated by K.S.A.…”
State v. McCroy, 486 P.3d 618 (Kan. 2021). “A district court's noncompliance with the graduated sanctioning scheme set forth in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716 does not fall within the definition of an illegal sentence under K.”
State v. Wilson, 501 P.3d 885 (Kan. 2022). “When an appellate court holds that a district court abused its discretion by not following the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, the correct disposition is to reverse the decision and remand the case to the district court with directions to ensure the statute is…”
State v. Chardon, 449 P.3d 1224 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(1)(E) — 49 cases
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Wilson, 501 P.3d 885 (Kan. 2022). “When an appellate court holds that a district court abused its discretion by not following the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, the correct disposition is to reverse the decision and remand the case to the district court with directions to ensure the statute is…”
State v. Dooley, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018). “Dooley argues that the district court erred in imposing the underlying prison term because the district court failed to base its decision on a statutory exception that would have authorized the court to bypass the intermediate probation violation sanctions mandated by K.S.A.…”
State v. Weekes, 427 P.3d 861 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Resto-Isaac (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(10) — 3 cases
State v. Dominguez, 473 P.3d 932 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “The 2019 amendment to the intermediate sanctioning scheme at K.S.A. 22-3716 does not apply retroactively to probation violators whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the amendment.”
State v. Allen (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Mendez (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(11) — 7 cases
State v. Coleman, 460 P.3d 828 (Kan. 2020). “Subsection (c)(9)(B) was enacted as a part of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716, which states: "(c)(1) Except as otherwise provided, if the original crime of conviction was a felony, other than a felony specified in K.”
State v. Chardon, 449 P.3d 1224 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Stotts (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Bolitho (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Allen (Kan. Ct. App. 2017).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(12) — 8 cases
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Dominguez, 473 P.3d 932 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “The 2019 amendment to the intermediate sanctioning scheme at K.S.A. 22-3716 does not apply retroactively to probation violators whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the amendment.”
State v. Tearney, 457 P.3d 178 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Ostrosky (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Llamas (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(2) — 4 cases
State v. Ewing (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Day (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Benjamin (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Davis (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(4) — 3 cases
State v. McGill, 340 P.3d 515 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Hase (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Harmon (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(5) — 3 cases
State v. Deffenbaugh (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Zongker (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Bustillos (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(6) — 2 cases
State v. Welch (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Dominguez (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(7) — 31 cases
State v. McRoberts, 567 P.3d 905 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Wilkinson (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Ponder (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Fox (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Smith (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(7)(A) — 31 cases
State v. McRoberts, 567 P.3d 905 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Calderon (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Spencer (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Bermdez (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Harrison (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(7)(B) — 105 cases
State v. Kling (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Wright (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Restro-Isaac (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Lundberg (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Abson (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(7)(C) — 91 cases
State v. McRoberts, 567 P.3d 905 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Solis (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Harrison (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Wilkinson (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Vann (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(7)(D) — 3 cases
State v. Elias (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Aguirre (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Burns (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(7)(a) — 1 case
State v. Lutchka (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(7)(b) — 1 case
State v. Swindell (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(7)(c)(C) — 1 case
State v. Yazell (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(8) — 47 cases
State v. Dooley, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018). “Dooley argues that the district court erred in imposing the underlying prison term because the district court failed to base its decision on a statutory exception that would have authorized the court to bypass the intermediate probation violation sanctions mandated by K.S.A.…”
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. Tafolla, 508 P.3d 351 (Kan. 2022). “Because Tafolla's argument requires interpretation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716, this court exercises unlimited review.”
State v. Dooley, 491 P.3d 1250 (Kan. 2021).
State v. Brown, 357 P.3d 296 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(8)(A) — 100 cases
State v. Dunham, 472 P.3d 604 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Lyon, 471 P.3d 716 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Lawrence (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Garcia (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Whiteford (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(8)(B) — 9 cases
State v. Parsons (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Major (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Jones (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Casey (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Villefranc (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(8)(B)(i) — 2 cases
State v. Granados (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Ortiz (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(9) — 41 cases
State v. Clapp, 425 P.3d 605 (Kan. 2018). “Clapp argues his sentence is illegal because it fails to comply with K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3716's authorized dispositions following a probation violation.”
State v. McFeeters, 362 P.3d 603 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Dooley, 423 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2018). “Dooley argues that the district court erred in imposing the underlying prison term because the district court failed to base its decision on a statutory exception that would have authorized the court to bypass the intermediate probation violation sanctions mandated by K.S.A.…”
State v. Brown, 357 P.3d 296 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Wilson, 501 P.3d 885 (Kan. 2022). “When an appellate court holds that a district court abused its discretion by not following the procedure set out in K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716, the correct disposition is to reverse the decision and remand the case to the district court with directions to ensure the statute is…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(9)(A) — 27 cases
State v. Duran, 445 P.3d 761 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Tearney, 457 P.3d 178 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Blocker (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Pevy (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Hooper (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(9)(B) — 70 cases
State v. Coleman, 460 P.3d 828 (Kan. 2020). “Subsection (c)(9)(B) was enacted as a part of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716, which states: "(c)(1) Except as otherwise provided, if the original crime of conviction was a felony, other than a felony specified in K.”
State v. Tafolla, 508 P.3d 351 (Kan. 2022). “Because Tafolla's argument requires interpretation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716, this court exercises unlimited review.”
State v. Duran, 445 P.3d 761 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Dominguez, 473 P.3d 932 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “The 2019 amendment to the intermediate sanctioning scheme at K.S.A. 22-3716 does not apply retroactively to probation violators whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the amendment.”
State v. Lyon, 471 P.3d 716 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(l) — 2 cases
State v. Huckey, 348 P.3d 997 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Kurtz, 340 P.3d 509 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Thus, the only way that K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3716 could apply to Kurtz’ sentence is if it was meant to operate retroactively.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(l)(A) — 1 case
State v. McGill, 340 P.3d 515 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(l)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Kurtz, 340 P.3d 509 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Thus, the only way that K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3716 could apply to Kurtz’ sentence is if it was meant to operate retroactively.”
State v. McFeeters, 362 P.3d 603 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(c)(l)(C) — 1 case
State v. McFeeters, 362 P.3d 603 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(d) — 9 cases
State v. Gordon, 66 P.3d 903 (Kan. 2003). “21-4611 and K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 22-3716, concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to extend the defendants’ probations and further concluded that the extension of Scribner’s probation without a hearing was contrary to law.”
State v. Skolaut, 182 P.3d 1231 (Kan. 2008). “: The district court refused to consider, for any probation-related purpose, Kenneth Skolaut’s conduct occurring after his probation term but during the pendency of probation violation proceedings under K.S.A. 22-3716. The State appealed the ruling on a question reserved which…”
State v. Cisneros, 147 P.3d 880 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Curtis, 209 P.3d 753 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Baldwin, 150 P.3d 325 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(d)(4) — 1 case
State v. Pierce (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(e) — 26 cases
State v. McKnight, 257 P.3d 339 (Kan. 2011). “Any Lesser Sentence K.S.A. 22-3716(b) authorizes a trial court revoking a defendant’s probation to “require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence.”
State v. Hilton, 286 P.3d 871 (Kan. 2012).
Garcia v. Ball, 363 P.3d 399 (Kan. 2015).
Moss v. Mamalis, 138 P.3d 380 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Baker, 429 P.3d 240 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(f) — 8 cases
State v. Bee, 207 P.3d 244 (Kan. 2009).
State v. Preston, 195 P.3d 240 (Kan. 2008).
State v. Kurtz, 340 P.3d 509 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “Thus, the only way that K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3716 could apply to Kurtz’ sentence is if it was meant to operate retroactively.”
State v. Sheets, 494 P.3d 168 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Thomas (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3716(g) — 2 cases
State v. Fox (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Dye, 432 P.3d 111 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
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.