22-3803.
Taxation of costs.
At the conclusion of each criminal case the court shall tax the costs against the party responsible for payment and shall cause to be delivered to such responsible party a complete statement of the costs, specifying each item of service and the fee assessed for such service. When the costs are ordered paid by the county, the statement of costs shall not include that portion of the docket fee which is to be paid to the county general fund for the services of the clerk of the district court and the sheriff. Such statement shall be filed in the office of county clerk and shall be allowed by the board of county commissioners and paid as other claims against the county. When the claim has been allowed by the board of county commissioners, payment shall be made to the clerk of the court who shall distribute such funds to the persons entitled to receive them.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3803; L. 1978, ch. 128, § 2; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case:
State v. Douglas, 279 P.3d 133 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Douglas, 279 P.3d 133 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Douglas asserted in his motion that the costs in his case were no longer collectable by the district court or its collection agency because he had never been provided with an itemized statement of the costs pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3803 and because the statute of limitations found…”
State v. Phillips, 210 P.3d 93 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Further, although the fees are a judgment, K.S.A. 22-3803 provides that costs are to be taxed in a statement of costs issued at the conclusion of a criminal proceeding.”
State v. Raschke, 219 P.3d 481 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 2× “We rejected the statutory arguments, ruling that none of the fees at issue were part of the sentence and that K.S.A. 22-3803 specifically dealt with parties’ notification of taxation of costs and allowed notice outside of open court.”
State v. Dean, 743 P.2d 98 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987).
“K.S.A. 22-3803 provides that “[a]t the conclusion of each criminal case the court shall tax the costs against the party responsible for payment and shall cause to be delivered to such responsible party a complete statement of the costs, specifying each item of service and the…”
State v. Garrett, 780 P.2d 168 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
“K.S.A. 22-3803 states: “At the conclusion of each criminal case the court shall tax the costs against the party responsible for payment.”
State v. Robinson (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “¶¶ 2-3, 5 (finding the booking fee and BIDS application fee to be costs, and finding K.S.A. 22-3803 does not require the defendant's presence or the imposition of costs at the sentencing hearing); State v.”
State v. Copridge (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
“In that motion Copridge argued that he should be released from the judgment because he never received an assessment of the costs pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3803. The Sedgwick County District Court denied this motion, holding "[r]elease would not be appropriate under [the] statutes.”
State v. Stuart (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“' "We need not resolve this ambiguity, however, because the fees at issue are costs, and K.S.A. 22-3803 specifically addresses the manner in which costs are to be assessed .”
State v. Davis (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
“22-3801(a) provides: "If the defendant in a criminal case is convicted, the court costs shall be taxed against the defendant and shall be a judgment against the defendant which may be enforced as judgments for payment of money in civil cases.”
State v. Garrison (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
“at 40 (quoting K.S.A. 22-3803); see also State v. Dean, 12 Kan.”
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.