History:
L. 1981, ch. 140, § 3; L. 1996, ch. 257, § 3; L. 1999, ch. 170, § 4; L. 2002, ch. 155, § 3; L. 2005, ch. 153, § 5; L. 2007, ch. 169, § 8; Repealed, L. 2009, ch. 32, § 64; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Trial court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence seized by search warrant based on unverified reports coupled with personal observation. State v. Walter, 234 Kan. 78, 79, 670 P.2d 1354 (1983).
2. Conviction hereunder; speedy trial, search and seizure discussed. State v. Huber, 10 Kan. App. 2d 560, 561, 704 P.2d 1004 (1985).
3. Conviction reversed; search warrant based on warrantless searches, expectation of privacy, curtilage of home, plain view doctrine examined. State v. Waldschmidt, 12 Kan. App. 2d 284, 285, 740 P.2d 617 (1987).
4. Cited; information charging possession of drug paraphernalia as not requiring allegation of purpose for possession examined. State v. McMannis, 12 Kan. App. 2d 464, 467, 747 P.2d 1343 (1987).
5. Conviction affirmed; criteria to consider in sentencing (K.S.A. 21-4606), specific findings required before imposing fine examined. State v. McGlothlin, 242 Kan. 437, 747 P.2d 1335 (1988).
6. Cited; search and seizure with warrant based on observations of state park custodian; private citizen not agent of state examined. State v. Smith, 243 Kan. 715, 717, 763 P.2d 632 (1988).
7. Propriety of searches and seizures, excessive sentencing examined. State v. Doile, 244 Kan. 493, 769 P.2d 666 (1989).
8. "Totality of the circumstances" indicating adequacy of affidavit submitted in support of search warrant examined. State v. Toler, 246 Kan. 269, 787 P.2d 711 (1990).
9. Unlawful arrest as not giving immunity from prosecution nor defense to conviction, admissibility of statements after arrest examined. State v. Weis, 246 Kan. 694, 695, 792 P.2d 989 (1990).
10. Cited in opinion holding that Kansas drug tax act (K.S.A. 79-5201 et seq.) does not violate due process provisions of U.S. Constitution. State v. Berberich, 248 Kan. 854, 811 P.2d 1192 (1991).
11. Lack of probable cause in stopping vehicle and suppression of evidence seized from illegal stop and frisk noted. State v. McKeown, 249 Kan. 506, 819 P.2d 644 (1991).
12. Guidelines for determining reasonableness of impounding a vehicle examined. State v. Teeter, 249 Kan. 548, 550, 819 P.2d 651 (1991).
13. Necessity of making specific findings pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4607(2) and (3) before imposing a fine, prospective application of K.S.A. 21-4603(3) examined. State v. McNett, 15 Kan. App. 2d 291, 292, 807 P.2d 171 (1991).
14. Search warrant directed against multiple occupancy structure invalid if description of unit insufficient; exception where affidavit contains description and affiant is officer executing warrant. State v. Dye, 250 Kan. 287, 288, 826 P.2d 500 (1992).
15. Possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia are not multiplicitous charges. State v. Hill, 16 Kan. App. 2d 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 823 P.2d 201 (1992).
16. Conviction affirmed; circumstances when failure of court to give cautionary instruction on testimony of paid informant not reversible error examined. State v. Novotny, 252 Kan. 753, 851 P.2d 365 (1993).
17. Whether detection of marijuana odor standing alone provides probable cause for vehicle search following checklane stop examined. State v. MacDonald, 253 Kan. 320, 856 P.2d 116 (1993).
18. Where identical offenses are involved, defendant can only be sentenced under the lesser penalty. State v. Campbell, 278 Kan. 410, 101 P.3d 1179 (2004).
19. Where offenses have identical elements but are classified differently for punishment, defendant convicted of either may be sentenced only under lesser penalty. State v. Campbell, 279 Kan. 1, 106 P.3d 1129 (2005).
22. Not identical to the crime of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine. State v. Fanning, 281 Kan. 1176, 1184, 135 P.3d 1067 (2006).
23. Conviction hereunder; law regarding police-citizen encounters discussed and applied to fourth amendment search and seizure issues. State v. Thompson, 284 Kan. 763, 166 P.3d 1015 (2007).
24. Conviction of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine classified as drug severity level 1. State v. Malm, 37 Kan. App. 2d 532, 534, 551, 552, 154 P.3d 1154 (2007).
25. Criminal convictions hereunder; court discusses grounds to uphold warrantless searches. State v. Geraghty, 38 Kan. App. 2d 114, 117, 163 P.3d 350 (2007).
26. Conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia not identical crimes; conspiracy requires "an agreement." State v. Denny, 38 Kan. App. 2d 724, 726, 730, 172 P.3d 57 (2007).
27. Conviction hereunder upheld. State v. Spangler, 38 Kan. App. 2d 817, 818, 833, 835 to 839, 173 P.3d 656 (2008).
29. Cited; in discussion of McAdam case and the three exceptions for timely appeal of criminal cases. State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200, 206, 195 P.3d 753 (2008).
31. Cited; court discusses and applies the identical offense doctrine to K.S.A. 65-4152 and 65-4159. State v. Moore, 39 Kan. App. 2d 568, 588, 589, 591, 181 P.3d 1258 (2008).
32. Cited in case discussing multiplicity conviction determinations and identical offense rule. State v. Pritchard, 39 Kan. App. 2d 746, 753, 755, 756, 184 P.3d 951 (2008).
33. Defendant who fails to participate in ordered drug abuse treatment program is subject to serve underlying prison sentence. State v. Bee, 288 Kan. 733, 207 P.3d 244 (2009).
34. BIDS application fee procedures protect a defendant's constitutional right to counsel. State v. Casady, 289 Kan. 150, 210 P.3d 113 (2009).
35. Constructive possession principles discussed and applied; no probable cause found. State v. Beaver, 41 Kan. App. 2d 124, 200 P.3d 490 (2009).
36. Search of vehicle upheld; case law on vehicle searches discussed and applied. State v. Davison, 41 Kan. App. 2d 140, 202 P.3d 44 (2009).
37. Probable cause for search found in case involving drug charges, based upon smell and plain view of paraphernalia. State v. Ulrey, 41 Kan. App. 2d 1052, 208 P.3d 317 (2009).
39. Crimes of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia are not multiplicitous. State v. Ralston, 43 Kan. App. 2d 353, 225 P.3d 741 (2010).
State v. Overman, 348 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 26ד" K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4150(c)(11); K.S.A. 2007 Supp.”
State v. Snellings, 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 31דThe only way for both statutes to prohibit this conduct was for ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to be considered "drug paraphernalia" under K.S.A. 65-4152. The Campbell court concluded ephedrine or pseudoephedrine fell within the definition of "drug paraphernalia" and, therefore,…”
State v. Schoonover, 133 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 12ד65-4159 with K.S.A. 65-4152. Therefore, the crimes are not multiplicitous and there is no double jeopardy violation.”
State v. Campbell, 106 P.3d 1129 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 19דCampbell contends that he was illegally sentenced for possession of ephedrine as a drug severity level 1 felony and that he can be sentenced only under the lesser penalty provision of K.S.A. 65-4152. K.S.A. 65-4152(a) provides: “No person shall .”
State v. Thompson, 197 P.3d 355 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 9דThe statutes at issue in Campbell and in the present case, K.S.A. 65-4152(a) and K.S.A. 65-7006, were enacted in 1981 and 1999, respectively.”
State v. Dean, 208 P.3d 343 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 28דK.S.A. 2006 Supp. 65-4152 states, in relevant part: “(a) No person shall use or possess with intent to use: (2) any drug paraphernalia to use, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance in violation of the…”
State v. Fisher, 154 P.3d 455 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 8ד65-7006), and possession of drug paraphernalia (K.S.A. 65-4152[a][3]) are multiplicitous.”
Wilson v. State, 71 P.3d 1180 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 16ד4 (K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-4152[a]) were in full force and effect.”
State v. Malm, 154 P.3d 1154 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 14ד65-7006(a) and possession of drug manufacturing paraphernalia under K.S.A. 65-4152(a)(3) were multiplicitous; (5) the district court erred by classifying conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine as a drug severity level 1 offense as opposed to a drug severity level 4 offense;…”
State v. Adams, 273 P.3d 718 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 9ד65-4160(a), a severity level 4 drug felony; and (6) possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4152(a)(2), a class A nonperson misdemeanor.”
State v. Thompson, 166 P.3d 1015 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 4ד65-4162(a)(3), a class A misdemeanor; and (7) possession of drug use paraphernalia in violation of K.S.A. 65-4152(a)(2), a class A misdemeanor.”
State v. Fanning, 135 P.3d 1067 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 11דK.S.A. 65-4152 provides: “(a) No person shall use or possess with intent to use: (3) any drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, sell or distribute a controlled…”
State v. Overman, 348 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2015). “" K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4150(c)(11); K.S.A. 2007 Supp.”
State v. Campbell, 106 P.3d 1129 (Kan. 2005). “Campbell contends that he was illegally sentenced for possession of ephedrine as a drug severity level 1 felony and that he can be sentenced only under the lesser penalty provision of K.S.A. 65-4152. K.S.A. 65-4152(a) provides: “No person shall .”
State v. Thompson, 197 P.3d 355 (Kan. 2008). “The statutes at issue in Campbell and in the present case, K.S.A. 65-4152(a) and K.S.A. 65-7006, were enacted in 1981 and 1999, respectively.”
State v. Dean, 208 P.3d 343 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 65-4152 states, in relevant part: “(a) No person shall use or possess with intent to use: (2) any drug paraphernalia to use, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance in violation of the…”
State v. Thompson, 166 P.3d 1015 (Kan. 2007). “65-4162(a)(3), a class A misdemeanor; and (7) possession of drug use paraphernalia in violation of K.S.A. 65-4152(a)(2), a class A misdemeanor.”
State v. Overman, 348 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2015). “" K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4150(c)(11); K.S.A. 2007 Supp.”
State v. Snellings, 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012). “The only way for both statutes to prohibit this conduct was for ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to be considered "drug paraphernalia" under K.S.A. 65-4152. The Campbell court concluded ephedrine or pseudoephedrine fell within the definition of "drug paraphernalia" and, therefore,…”
State v. Overman, 348 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2015). “" K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4150(c)(11); K.S.A. 2007 Supp.”
State v. Snellings, 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012). “The only way for both statutes to prohibit this conduct was for ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to be considered "drug paraphernalia" under K.S.A. 65-4152. The Campbell court concluded ephedrine or pseudoephedrine fell within the definition of "drug paraphernalia" and, therefore,…”
State v. Schoonover, 133 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2006). “65-4159 with K.S.A. 65-4152. Therefore, the crimes are not multiplicitous and there is no double jeopardy violation.”
State v. Campbell, 106 P.3d 1129 (Kan. 2005). “Campbell contends that he was illegally sentenced for possession of ephedrine as a drug severity level 1 felony and that he can be sentenced only under the lesser penalty provision of K.S.A. 65-4152. K.S.A. 65-4152(a) provides: “No person shall .”
State v. Thompson, 197 P.3d 355 (Kan. 2008). “The statutes at issue in Campbell and in the present case, K.S.A. 65-4152(a) and K.S.A. 65-7006, were enacted in 1981 and 1999, respectively.”
— K.S.A. § 65-4152(a)(4) — 3 cases
State v. Schoonover, 133 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2006). “65-4159 with K.S.A. 65-4152. Therefore, the crimes are not multiplicitous and there is no double jeopardy violation.”
State v. Adams, 273 P.3d 718 (Kan. 2012). “65-4160(a), a severity level 4 drug felony; and (6) possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4152(a)(2), a class A nonperson misdemeanor.”
State v. Snellings, 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012). “The only way for both statutes to prohibit this conduct was for ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to be considered "drug paraphernalia" under K.S.A. 65-4152. The Campbell court concluded ephedrine or pseudoephedrine fell within the definition of "drug paraphernalia" and, therefore,…”
State v. Campbell, 106 P.3d 1129 (Kan. 2005). “Campbell contends that he was illegally sentenced for possession of ephedrine as a drug severity level 1 felony and that he can be sentenced only under the lesser penalty provision of K.S.A. 65-4152. K.S.A. 65-4152(a) provides: “No person shall .”
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.