History:
L. 1999, ch. 170, § 12; L. 2002, ch. 155, § 4; L. 2005, ch. 153, § 3; L. 2006, ch. 194, § 34; L. 2007, ch. 169, § 13; Repealed, L. 2009, ch. 32, § 64; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Section prohibits possession of drug products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as well as drug itself. State v. Frazier, 30 Kan App. 2d 398, 42 P.3d 188 (2002).
2. 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).
3. 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).
5. Elements of statutory offense differs from K.S.A. 65-4152 and 65-4159, no double jeopardy violation. State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 501, 504, 133 P.3d 48 (2006).
6. 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).
7. 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).
8. Possession of drug paraphernalia under K.S.A. 65-4152(a)(3) found identical to possession of ephedrine under K.S.A. 65-7006(a). State v. Spangler, 38 Kan App. 2d 817, 834, 173 P.3d 656 (2008).
9. Convictions hereunder vacated; trial court to conduct hearing to determine whether evidence is fruit of poisonous tree. State v. Poulton, 286 Kan. 1, 4, 179 P.3d 1145 (2008).
10. 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).
11. Cited; identical offense sentencing doctrine discussed and applied to K.S.A. 65-7006(a) and 65-4152(a)(3), lesser sentence of K.S.A. 65-4152(a)(3) controls. State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238, 240, 242, 243, 247 to 249, 251 to 253, 256, 259, 200 P.3d 22 (2008).
12. Cited in case discussing multiplicity conviction determinations and identical offense rule. State v. Pritchard, 39 Kan App. 2d 746, 756, 184 P.3d 951 (2008).
13. Discussion about what constitutes the "unit of prosecution" and multiplicity issues. State v. Mendoza, 41 Kan App. 2d 996, 207 P.3d 1072 (2009).
14. 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).
15. Conviction and sentence for possession of lithium metal with intent to manufacture a controlled substance affirmed. State v. Adams, 43 Kan App. 2d 842, 232 P.3d 347 (2010).
16. Statute is not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. State v. Teter, 47 Kan App. 2d 608, 278 P.3d 968 (2012).
State v. Thompson, 197 P.3d 355 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 27דproduct to manufacture a controlled substance,” the Court of Appeals posed several questions before coming to its determination regarding legislative intent: *247 “Did the legislature intend that upon discovering a complete methamphetamine lab with the presence of all the items…”
State v. Snellings, 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 38דAt the time Campbell was decided and at the time Snellings committed the crime at issue in this case, K.S.A. 65-7006 provided in part: "(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, red phosphorus, lithium metal, sodium metal, iodine, anhydrous…”
State v. Overman, 348 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 23ד65-4159; possession of red phosphorous and iodine with intent to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-7006; possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of K.”
State v. Campbell, 106 P.3d 1129 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 29ד01CR147, he was charged with one count each of manufacture of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of ephedrine widi intent to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use it to manufacture a…”
State v. Schoonover, 133 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 7דK.S.A. 65-7006 requires proof of possession of ephedrine.”
State v. Frazier, 42 P.3d 188 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 13דFrazier contends that the conduct for which he was convicted was proscribed by both the statute prohibiting possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, a drug severity level 1 felony (K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 65-7006[a]), and the statute prohibiting pos *404 session of drug…”
Wilson v. State, 71 P.3d 1180 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 24דWilson recognizes that Frazier represents new case law but contends the only period for which the concept of retroactiveness must be considered is when the statute (K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 65-7006[a]) is being applied to a defendant prior to its original enactment before July 1, 1999.”
State v. Adams, 273 P.3d 718 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 12דion of a search warrant; (2) the jury was given an improper instruction with regard to testimony about prior drug use; (3) the court erred in using his criminal history to enhance his sentence; and (4) under the identical offense sentencing doctrine, the court erred in…”
State v. Fisher, 154 P.3d 455 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 8ד65-4159), possession of ephedrine (K.S.A. 65-7006), and possession of drug paraphernalia (K.”
State v. Thompson, 166 P.3d 1015 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 4ד65-4159, a severity level 1 drug felony; (2) possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as a precursor in violation of K.S.A. 65-7006(a), a severity level 1 drug felony; (3) possession of lithium metal as a precursor in violation of K.”
State v. Malm, 154 P.3d 1154 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8דing Malm's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of an illegal traffic stop; (2) the district court erred by denying Malm's motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant; (3) Malm was denied a fair trial based upon prosecutorial…”
State v. Phinney, 122 P.3d 356 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 3דAt the preliminary hearing on December 14, 2001, the State agreed to dismiss Counts 2 through 4 and to recommend probation in exchange for Phinney s plea of no contest to the remaining count of possession or sale of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, in…”
State v. Thompson, 197 P.3d 355 (Kan. 2008). “product to manufacture a controlled substance,” the Court of Appeals posed several questions before coming to its determination regarding legislative intent: *247 “Did the legislature intend that upon discovering a complete methamphetamine lab with the presence of all the items…”
State v. Snellings, 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012). “At the time Campbell was decided and at the time Snellings committed the crime at issue in this case, K.S.A. 65-7006 provided in part: "(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, red phosphorus, lithium metal, sodium metal, iodine, anhydrous…”
State v. Campbell, 106 P.3d 1129 (Kan. 2005). “01CR147, he was charged with one count each of manufacture of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of ephedrine widi intent to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use it to manufacture a…”
State v. Overman, 348 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2015). “65-4159; possession of red phosphorous and iodine with intent to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-7006; possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of K.”
State v. Frazier, 42 P.3d 188 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “Frazier contends that the conduct for which he was convicted was proscribed by both the statute prohibiting possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, a drug severity level 1 felony (K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 65-7006[a]), and the statute prohibiting pos *404 session of drug…”
— K.S.A. § 65-7006(b) — 2 cases
State v. Frazier, 42 P.3d 188 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “Frazier contends that the conduct for which he was convicted was proscribed by both the statute prohibiting possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, a drug severity level 1 felony (K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 65-7006[a]), and the statute prohibiting pos *404 session of drug…”
State v. Snellings, 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012). “At the time Campbell was decided and at the time Snellings committed the crime at issue in this case, K.S.A. 65-7006 provided in part: "(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, red phosphorus, lithium metal, sodium metal, iodine, anhydrous…”
State v. Campbell, 106 P.3d 1129 (Kan. 2005). “01CR147, he was charged with one count each of manufacture of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of ephedrine widi intent to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use it to manufacture a…”
State v. Snellings, 273 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2012). “At the time Campbell was decided and at the time Snellings committed the crime at issue in this case, K.S.A. 65-7006 provided in part: "(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, red phosphorus, lithium metal, sodium metal, iodine, anhydrous…”
State v. Adams, 273 P.3d 718 (Kan. 2012). “ion of a search warrant; (2) the jury was given an improper instruction with regard to testimony about prior drug use; (3) the court erred in using his criminal history to enhance his sentence; and (4) under the identical offense sentencing doctrine, the court erred in…”
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.