22-4529.
Entitlement of defendant to counsel; application fee; disposition of moneys.
Any defendant entitled to counsel pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4503, and amendments thereto, shall pay an application fee in the amount of $100 to the clerk of the district court. Any defendant entitled to counsel in a proceeding for a violation of a condition of release pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3716, and amendments thereto, shall pay an application fee of $100 to the clerk of the district court. Such fee shall be paid regardless of whether the defendant has paid application fees pursuant to this section in any other proceeding. If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of the application fee will impose manifest hardship on the defendant, the court may waive payment of all or part of the application fee. All moneys received pursuant to this section shall be remitted to the state treasurer in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 75-4215, and amendments thereto. Upon receipt of each such remittance, the state treasurer shall deposit the entire amount in the state treasury to the credit of the indigents' defense services fund. If the defendant is acquitted or the case is dismissed, any application fee paid pursuant to this section shall be remitted to the defendant.
History:
L. 1997, ch. 181, § 16; L. 2001, ch. 5, § 84; L. 2003, ch. 123, § 2; L. 2012, ch. 30, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
State v. Scaife, 186 P.3d 755 (Kan. 2008).
State v. Scaife, 186 P.3d 755 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 4× “SENTENCING JOURNAL ENTRY Scaife complains that the sentencing journal entry includes an order that he pay the BIDS application fee, as set forth in K.S.A. 22-4529, after the judge failed to pronounce that part of the court's judgment at the sentencing hearing.”
State v. Phillips, 210 P.3d 93 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 5× “22-4513 (fee for counsel and defense services) and K.S.A. 22-4529 (application fee) and the requirement of paying these fees was not part of Wenzel’s punishment for a felony conviction of driving under the influence.”
State v. Loggins, 194 P.3d 31 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 15× “Finally, Log-gins claims that the imposition of a BIDS application fee under K.S.A. 22-4529 is unconstitutional. Loggins was charged in separate cases with one count of felony theft of property having a value of at least $1,000 but less than $25,000, and one count of felony…”
State v. Hawkins, 176 P.3d 174 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 4× “In this case, however, the State separately challenged the application fee, asserting that the Robinson holding should not extend to the application fee required by K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-4529, because that statute does not contain the same language as K.”
State v. Casady, 191 P.3d 1130 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 15× “Although this issue was not raised below, we reach the constitutional arguments and hold that K.S.A. 22-4529 is constitutional for the several reasons we state herein.”
State v. Casady, 210 P.3d 113 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 8× “Casady urges this court to find that the $100 BIDS application fee mandated by K.S.A. 22-4529 violates an indigent defendant’s rights under the United States and Kansas Constitutions.”
State v. Riojas, 204 P.3d 578 (Kan. 2009).
· cites it 2× “At sentencing, the trial court imposed a $100 application fee against Riojas under K.S.A. 22-4529. *389 Interpretation of a sentencing statute is a question of law, and the appellate court’s standard of review is unlimited.”
State v. Bonner, 227 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2010).
· cites it 3× “The application fee is provided for in K.S.A. 22-4529, which states in relevant part: “Any defendant entitled to counsel pursuant to K.”
Creecy v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 447 P.3d 959 (Kan. 2019).
“3d 113 (2009), this court considered a constitutional due process challenge to K.S.A. 22-4529, the statute mandating the imposition of the application fee for the Kansas Board of Indigents' Defense Services (BIDS).”
State v. Hawkins, 152 P.3d 85 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “However, the State argues the holding of Robinson does not extend to the order requiring the defendant to pay the $100 application fee required by K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-4529. The State notes the language of K.”
State v. Raschke, 219 P.3d 481 (Kan. 2009).
“3d 934 (2006); and that the legislature permitted the application fee to be waived, see K.S.A. 22-4529; K.S.A. 21-4603d(a)(9). 289 Kan.”
State v. Martinez, 165 P.3d 1050 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “However, with regard to the imposition of the BIDS application fee pursuant to K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-4529, we adopt the reasoning announced in State v.”
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.