22-4513.
Liability of defendant for expenditures by state board; judgment; determination of amount and method of payment; liability of others for expenditures.
(a) If the defendant is convicted, all expenditures made by the state board of indigents' defense services to provide counsel and other defense services to such defendant or the amount allowed by the board of indigents' defense reimbursement tables as provided in K.S.A. 22-4522, and amendments thereto, whichever is less, shall be taxed against the defendant and shall be enforced as judgments for payment of money in civil cases.
(b) In determining the amount and method of payment of such sum, the court shall take account of the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of such sum will impose. A defendant who has been required to pay such sum and who is not willfully in default in the payment thereof may at any time petition the court which sentenced the defendant to waive payment of such sum or of any unpaid portion thereof. If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the amount due will impose manifest hardship on the defendant or the defendant's immediate family, the court may waive payment of all or part of the amount due or modify the method of payment.
(c) Whenever any judgment has been entered pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, a sum equal to such judgment may be recovered by the state of Kansas for the benefit of the state general fund from any persons to whom the indigent defendant shall have transferred any of the defendant's property without adequate monetary consideration after the commission of the alleged crime, to the extent of the value of such transfer, and such persons are hereby made liable to reimburse the state of Kansas with interest at 6% per annum. Any action to recover judgment for such expenditures shall be prosecuted by the attorney general, who may require the assistance of the county attorney of the county in which the action is to be filed, and such action shall be governed by the provisions of the code of civil procedure relating to actions for the recovery of money. No action shall be brought against any person under the provisions of this section to recover for sums expended on behalf of an indigent defendant, unless such action shall have been filed within two years after the date of the expenditure by the state board of indigents' defense services.
History:
L. 1969, ch. 291, § 13; L. 1976, ch. 169, § 3; L. 1981, ch. 157, § 2; L. 1982, ch. 142, § 24; L. 1997, ch. 181, § 23; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
111
cases (
32 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case:
State v. Robinson, 132 P.3d 934 (Kan. 2006).
State v. Robinson, 132 P.3d 934 (Kan. 2006).
· cites it 47× “We must consider two issues: (1) Whether such an assessment under K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 22-4513 is error if a sentencing judge fails to explicitly consider sua sponte at the time of assessment a defendant's ability to pay and the financial burden payment would impose, and (2)…”
State v. King, 204 P.3d 585 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 7× “21-4603d(b)(1) and those for reimbursement of fees to the Board of Indigents’ Defense Services (BIDS) under K.S.A. 22-4513 in light of our recent decision in Robinson, 281 Kan.”
State v. Copes, 224 P.3d 571 (Kan. 2010).
· cites it 17× “The sentencing transcript indicates the district court did not consider any of the factors listed in K.S.A. 22-4513. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that Copes agreed to pay BIDS attorney fees as part of the plea agreement.”
State v. Stevens, 172 P.3d 570 (Kan. 2007).
· cites it 10× “The State’s argument necessitates interpretation of K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-4513 and K.S.A. 2006 Supp.”
State v. Scaife, 186 P.3d 755 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 6× “" Therefore, the imposition of attorney fees is vacated, and the matter is remanded for the court to make explicit findings on the record as to Scaife's financial resources and the burden that imposing the attorney fees reimbursement will place on the defendant.”
State v. Robinson, 109 P.3d 185 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 26× “The language of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-4513 has been closely examined under the judicial lens many times.”
State v. Moody, 144 P.3d 612 (Kan. 2006).
· cites it 6× “The issues before this court are (1) did the trial court have jurisdiction to sentence Moody as a fourth-time DUI offender and, if so, was Moody afforded due process, and (2) did the trial court err in ordering Moody to reimburse BIDS fees without first considering her ability…”
State v. Hawkins, 176 P.3d 174 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 6× “BIDS APPLICATION FEE At sentencing, the district court ordered Hawkins to pay $1,400 to reimburse BIDS for the attorney fees expended in his defense and to pay the $100 BIDS administrative (application) fee.”
State v. Stevens, 138 P.3d 1262 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 12× “Stevens’ argument requires interpretation of K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 22-4513 and K.S.A. 2005 Supp.”
State v. Voyles, 160 P.3d 794 (Kan. 2007).
· cites it 4× “The reimbursement statute, K.S.A.2006 Supp. 22-4513, provides: "(a) If the defendant is convicted, all expenditures made by the state board of indigents' defense services to provide counsel and other defense services to such defendant or the amount allowed by the board of…”
State v. Richardson, 224 P.3d 553 (Kan. 2010).
· cites it 6× “The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed Richardson’s convictions and sentences but remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration and appropriate findings regarding reimbursement of attorney fees after taking into account Richardson’s ability to pay in compliance with…”
State v. Buck-Schrag, 477 P.3d 1013 (Kan. 2020).
· cites it 4× “22 K.S.A. 22-4513 provides: "(a) If the defendant is convicted, all expenditures made by the State board of indigents' defense services to provide counsel and other defense services to such defendant or the amount allowed by the board of indigents' defense reimbursement tables…”
— K.S.A. § 22-4513(a) — 22 cases
State v. Robinson, 132 P.3d 934 (Kan. 2006).
“We must consider two issues: (1) Whether such an assessment under K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 22-4513 is error if a sentencing judge fails to explicitly consider sua sponte at the time of assessment a defendant's ability to pay and the financial burden payment would impose, and (2)…”
State v. Stevens, 172 P.3d 570 (Kan. 2007).
“The State’s argument necessitates interpretation of K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-4513 and K.S.A. 2006 Supp.”
State v. King, 204 P.3d 585 (Kan. 2009).
“21-4603d(b)(1) and those for reimbursement of fees to the Board of Indigents’ Defense Services (BIDS) under K.S.A. 22-4513 in light of our recent decision in Robinson, 281 Kan.”
State v. Stevens, 138 P.3d 1262 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
“Stevens’ argument requires interpretation of K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 22-4513 and K.S.A. 2005 Supp.”
— K.S.A. § 22-4513(b) — 63 cases
State v. Robinson, 132 P.3d 934 (Kan. 2006).
“We must consider two issues: (1) Whether such an assessment under K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 22-4513 is error if a sentencing judge fails to explicitly consider sua sponte at the time of assessment a defendant's ability to pay and the financial burden payment would impose, and (2)…”
State v. Copes, 224 P.3d 571 (Kan. 2010).
“The sentencing transcript indicates the district court did not consider any of the factors listed in K.S.A. 22-4513. The Court of Appeals concluded, however, that Copes agreed to pay BIDS attorney fees as part of the plea agreement.”
State v. King, 204 P.3d 585 (Kan. 2009).
“21-4603d(b)(1) and those for reimbursement of fees to the Board of Indigents’ Defense Services (BIDS) under K.S.A. 22-4513 in light of our recent decision in Robinson, 281 Kan.”
State v. Robinson, 109 P.3d 185 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
“The language of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-4513 has been closely examined under the judicial lens many times.”
State v. Scaife, 186 P.3d 755 (Kan. 2008).
“" Therefore, the imposition of attorney fees is vacated, and the matter is remanded for the court to make explicit findings on the record as to Scaife's financial resources and the burden that imposing the attorney fees reimbursement will place on the defendant.”
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.