8-287.
Habitual violator; penalty.
Except as allowed under subsection (d)(4) of K.S.A. 8-235, and amendments thereto, operation of a motor vehicle in this state while one's driving privileges are revoked pursuant to K.S.A. 8-286, and amendments thereto, is a class A nonperson misdemeanor. The person found guilty of a third or subsequent conviction of this section shall be sentenced to not less than 90 days' imprisonment and fined not less than $1,500. The person convicted shall not be eligible for release on probation, suspension or reduction of sentence or parole until the person has served at least 90 days' imprisonment. The 90 days' imprisonment mandated by this subsection may be served in a work release program only after such person has served 48 consecutive hours' imprisonment, provided such work release program requires such person to return to confinement at the end of each day in the work release program. The court may place the person convicted under a house arrest program pursuant to K.S.A. 21-6609, and amendments thereto, or any municipal ordinance to serve the remainder of the minimum sentence only after such person has served 48 consecutive hours' imprisonment.
History:
L. 1972, ch. 32, § 4; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 28; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 3; L. 1994, ch. 353, § 6; L. 1999, ch. 164, § 2; L. 2006, ch. 211, § 11; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 90; L. 2012, ch. 172, § 8; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
30
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case:
State v. Lewis, 953 P.2d 1016 (Kan. 1998).
State v. Lewis, 953 P.2d 1016 (Kan. 1998).
· cites it 24× “Lewis was convicted of driving while a habitual violator under K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 8-287, a severity level 9, nonperson felony.”
State v. Proffitt, 930 P.2d 1059 (Kan. 1997).
· cites it 9× “Proffitt was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his driving privileges had been revoked as a habitual violator pursuant to K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 8-287. The district court dismissed the complaint based upon what it termed “vagueness” in K.”
State v. Heironimus, 941 P.2d 1356 (Kan. 1997).
· cites it 3× “8-286), was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his driving privileges were revoked (K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 8-287, a severity level 9, nonperson felony).”
State v. Whitehurst, 772 P.2d 1251 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “Whitehurst appeals his conviction of driving after being declared a habitual violator (K.S.A. 8-287) and driving with illegal registration (K.”
State v. Thomas, 20 P.3d 82 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “) K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 8-287. To prove the offense of no proof of liability insurance, the State had to prove that Thomas failed to “display, upon demand, evidence of financial security to a law enforcement officer” while he was “operating a motor vehicle upon a highway.”
State v. Crum, 19 P.3d 172 (Kan. 2001).
· cites it 2× “: This is Robert Lee Crum’s direct appeal of his conviction of driving as a habitual violator, K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 8-287, a severity level 9 nonperson felony.”
State v. Frazier, 811 P.2d 1240 (Kan. 1991).
· cites it 2× “8-262), driving after adjudication as a habitual violator (K.S.A. 8-287), reckless driving (K.S.A. 8-1566), fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer (K.”
State v. Lewis, 935 P.2d 1072 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “8-286 and K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 8-287 of driving while a habitual violator.”
State v. Boos, 659 P.2d 224 (Kan. 1983).
“We are not called upon, and do not here determine, the merit of defendant’s arguments if he were being prosecuted for a criminal act under K.S.A. 8-287. That question, however, was also considered in Whorley v.”
State v. Terrell, 488 P.3d 520 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
“See K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 8-287. On appeal, the State agreed it should have been classified as a nonperson misdemeanor.”
State v. Martinez, 988 P.2d 735 (Kan. 1999).
· cites it 5× “The case was tried to the district judge on stipulated facts.”
State v. Underwood, 693 P.2d 1205 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “He would be "convicted repeatedly," but, presumably all within a few minutes hardly what the phrase is understood to mean.”
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.