Source or Prior Law:

62-1512, 62-2251.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Parole eligibility for prisoners serving consecutive sentences in Kansas, Malcolm E. Wheeler, 21 K.L.R. 167, 168, 170 (1973).

Mandatory Sentencing Act (K.S.A. 21-4618), 26 K.L.R. 277, 280 (1978).

"Toward Certainty in Sentencing: Kansas Modifies the Indeterminate Sentence," Wayne K. Westblade, 18 W.L.J. 578 (1979).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Criminal Law," Robert A. Wason, 32 K.L.R. 395, 409 (1984).

"Parole in Kansas," Carla J. Stovall, 60 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 27, 28 (1991).

"Criminal Procedure Review: Survey of Recent Cases," 44 K.L.R. 895 (1996).

Survey of Recent Cases, 45 K.L.R. 1394 (1997).

Survey of Recent Cases, 46 K.L.R. 922 (1998).

"Criminal Procedure Survey of Recent Cases," Matt Corbin, Editor, 51 K.L.R. 659, 750 (2003).

"Criminal Procedure Survey of Recent Cases, Kansas Issue," 52 K.L.R. 771 (2004).

"Criminal Procedure Survey of Recent Cases," 54 K.L.R. 895 (2006).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Classification of crimes and penalties; prospective application of increased penalties. 82-187.

Ex post facto clause discussed and applied regarding bill concerning post incarceration supervision. 2008-14.

Criminal procedure; discussion of computation of jail credit earned and "sentence-begins" date. 2008-21.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Subsection (1) cited; greater sentence imposed after trial de novo on appeal to district court. State v. Parker, 213 Kan. 229, 230, 516 P.2d 153.

2. Contents noted; motion to vacate sentence pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507; no grounds for relief. Burns v. State, 215 Kan. 497, 500, 524 P.2d 737.

3. Applied; consecutive service of two terms upheld; convictions of aggravated assault. State v. Bradley, 215 Kan. 642, 648, 527 P.2d 988.

4. Cited; where record silent there is presumption that sentences are concurrent. State v. Thorton, 224 Kan. 127, 577 P.2d 1190.

5. Sentence upheld; no showing of abuse of discretion or vindictiveness on part of trial court. State v. Rice, 227 Kan. 416, 425, 607 P.2d 489.

6. Concurrent sentences with other states; amendment not retroactive; no appeal of sentence modification motion filed more than 130 days after sentencing. State v. Henning, 3 Kan. App. 2d 607, 608, 609, 599 P.2d 318.

7. Imposing consecutive sentences for charges arising from single transaction not error. State v. Grantom, 229 Kan. 517, 520, 625 P.2d 499.

8. Court cannot impose sentence to run consecutive to a sentence not yet imposed in a pending case. State v. Bell, 6 Kan. App. 2d 573, 574, 631 P.2d 254 (1981).

9. Paragraph (3) cited in holding error in sentencing under K.S.A. 21-4618 did not alter practical effect of concurrent sentences imposed for multiple crimes. State v. Smith, 232 Kan. 284, 286, 654 P.2d 929 (1982).

10. No abuse in imposing consecutive maximum sentences for each offense of aggravated kidnapping and rape. State v. Coberly, 233 Kan. 100, 110, 661 P.2d 383 (1983).

11. Life sentence controlled time served in prison; sentence on aggravated battery has no bearing on defendant's parole eligibility. State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355, 356, 681 P.2d 612 (1984).

12. Where sentencing criteria (K.S.A. 21-4606) followed, sentences imposed within judicial discretion. State v. Adkins, 236 Kan. 259, 264, 689 P.2d 880 (1984).

13. Suspended sentences included in meaning of probation for consecutive sentencing under (3). State v. Ashley, 236 Kan. 551, 553, 693 P.2d 1168 (1985).

14. Sentence on conviction for crime committed while on felony probation must be served consecutively to earlier sentence. State v. Kerley, 236 Kan. 863, 865, 696 P.2d 975 (1985).

15. K.S.A. 21-4614 considered with consecutive sentences to determine jail credit time and beginning sentence date. State v. Jenkins, 10 Kan. App. 2d 8, 10, 690 P.2d 396 (1984).

16. Defendant released on bond after conviction, but prior to sentencing, subject to mandatory provisions hereof which divest court of power to modify. State v. Sayles, 10 Kan. App. 2d 180, 181, 694 P.2d 918 (1985).

17. Consecutive sentences not mandated where defendant commits another felony while on release awaiting trial for earlier felony. State v. Reed, 10 Kan. App. 2d 189, 190, 694 P.2d 1329 (1985).

18. Consecutive sentences required for felony committed while on release pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2801 et seq. for prior felony. State v. Reed, 237 Kan. 685, 690, 703 P.2d 756 (1985).

19. Cited; jail time credit (K.S.A. 21-4614) while in community corrections facility on probation, authority to commit discussed. State v. Fowler, 238 Kan. 326, 337, 710 P.2d 1268 (1985).

20. Court not precluded from granting probation when appropriate, however remote such possibility might be. State v. Keeler, 238 Kan. 356, 369, 710 P.2d 1279 (1985).

21. Proceeding under K.S.A. 60-1507; intent of sentencing judge when one of multiple sentences vacated discussed. Niblock v. State, 11 Kan. App. 2d 30, 32, 711 P.2d 771 (1985).

22. Determination whether separate sentences imposed on same day should be concurrent or consecutive is discretionary with trial court. State v. Strauch, 239 Kan. 203, 219, 718 P.2d 613 (1986).

23. Cited; indigent defendant's right to transcript of sentencing hearing following denial of sentence modification examined. State v. Duckett, 13 Kan. App. 2d 122, 764 P.2d 134 (1988).

24. Trial court's comments in imposing sentence as not constituting abuse of discretion examined. State v. Pioletti, 246 Kan. 49, 68, 785 P.2d 963 (1990).

25. Legislature as having authority to provide limitation on applicability of any statute rather than appellate court noted. State v. King, 14 Kan. App. 2d 478, 481, 793 P.2d 1267 (1990).

26. Imposition of sentence contrary to plea agreement, when withdrawal of guilty plea permitted examined. State v. Hill, 247 Kan. 377, 380, 799 P.2d 997 (1990).

27. Record of criminal activity examined where court imposed consecutive maximum sentences within statutory limits. State v. Barraza-Flores, 16 Kan. App. 2d 15, 24, 819 P.2d 128 (1991).

28. Claim of consecutive sentences as constituting abusive sentence denied. Ellifrits v. Davies, 769 F. Supp. 350, 351 (1991).

29. Subsection (3) governs specific aspect of situations generally governed by subsection (8). State v. Aleman, 16 Kan. App. 2d 784, 830 P.2d 64 (1992).

30. Cited in holding once a sentence is imposed, court is powerless to vacate that sentence and impose a harsher sentence. State v. Royce, 252 Kan. 394, 396, 397, 845 P.2d 44 (1993).

31. Consecutive sentencing not mandatory under circumstances presented. State v. Edwards, 252 Kan. 860, 868, 869, 870, 852 P.2d 98 (1993).

32. Consecutive maximum sentences following nolo contendere pleas not abuse of trial court's discretion under facts stated. State v. Gibbens, 253 Kan. 384, 855 P.2d 937 (1993).

33. Statute does not apply to orders of commitment to state mental institution. State v. Finley, 18 Kan. App. 2d 419, 422, 854 P.2d 315 (1993).

34. No credit allowed toward controlling sentence (K.S.A. 21-4614a) for time spent under house arrest (K.S.A. 21-4603b); inpatient drug treatment issue remanded. State v. Williams, 18 Kan. App. 2d 424, 426, 856 P.2d 158 (1993).

35. Logistical problems noted where district court relinquished defendant to Missouri authorities absent evaluation at Topeka correctional facility. State v. Tillman, 18 Kan. App. 2d 556, 558, 858 P.2d 1219 (1993).

36. Whether felony sentencing through filing journal entry rather than in open court rendered sentences void examined. State v. Vickers, 19 Kan. App. 2d 495, 496, 872 P.2d 314 (1994).

37. Whether separate sentences imposed on the same day should be concurrent or consecutive is discretionary with trial court examined. State v. Johnson, 255 Kan. 252, 261, 874 P.2d 623 (1994).

38. Whether court erred by sentencing defendant to consecutive hard 40 sentences for two murder convictions examined. State v. Stafford, 255 Kan. 807, 816, 878 P.2d 820 (1994).

39. Whether court's ruling mandatory sentencing provision applies prior to actual sentencing rendered enhancement ineffectual examined. State v. Shortey, 256 Kan. 166, 176, 884 P.2d 426 (1994).

40. Whether corrected oral sentence prevails over erroneous application of sentence enhancement pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4204(1)(b) in journal entry examined. State v. McCloud, 256 Kan. 178, 180, 883 P.2d 775 (1994).

41. Whether court erred by assuming consecutive sentences for probation violation; subsection (1) takes precedence over subsection (4). State v. Owens, 19 Kan. App. 2d 773, 774, 875 P.2d 1007 (1994).

42. Whether allowing prosecution to amend habitual criminal act motion to substitute valid for invalid conviction is reversible error examined. State v. Hunt, 257 Kan. 388, 400, 894 P.2d 178 (1995).

43. Whether imposing imprisonment for presumed nonprison felony defendant committed on probation for felony constitutes departure examined. State v. Dillard, 20 Kan. App. 2d 660, 662, 890 P.2d 1248 (1995).

44. Whether defendant is entitled to rehearing on motion to modify where state violated plea agreement examined. State v. McDaniel, 20 Kan. App. 2d 883, 885, 893 P.2d 294 (1995).

45. Conviction for first-degree murder where sentence is life imprisonment may be enhanced under habitual criminal act. State v. Patterson, 257 Kan. 824, 826, 896 P.2d 1056 (1995).

46. Conversion of defendant's sentence to imprisonment instead of probation for offenses committed on parole constitutes dispositional departure. State v. Trimble, 21 Kan. App. 2d 32, 36, 894 P.2d 920 (1995).

47. If court imposes sentences in two cases at one time, exercise of discretion required in determining whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively. State v. Richmond, 21 Kan. App. 2d 126, 127, 896 P.2d 1112 (1995).

48. Under facts, trial court had discretion to determine sentence should run consecutively to sentence imposed in another county. State v. Chronister, 21 Kan. App. 2d 589, 592, 903 P.2d 1345 (1995).

49. Multiple counts from more than one information are included in subsection (b) multiple conviction cases. State v. Fields, 22 Kan. App. 2d 148, 150, 912 P.2d 774 (1996).

50. Section does not allow administrative KSGA (K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq.) conversion to harsher sentence than imposed by trial court. Blomeyer v. State, 22 Kan. App. 2d 382, 383, 915 P.2d 790 (1996).

51. Right of individual to receive credit against an unrevoked term of postrelease supervision for time incarcerated on another charge considered. White v. Bruce, 23 Kan. App. 2d 449, 453, 932 P.2d 448 (1997).

52. Inpatient drug treatment program probation condition qualifies for jail time credit irrespective whether under community corrections program. State v. Theis, 262 Kan. 4, 9, 936 P.2d 710 (1997).

53. Sentence concurrent where record of sentencing hearing silent as to concurrent or consecutive running not withstanding journal entry. State v. Jackson, 262 Kan. 119, 140, 936 P.2d 761 (1997).

54. Nunc pro tunc order changing consecutive sentence to concurrent illegal where court otherwise lacked jurisdiction notwithstanding parties agreement. State v. Vanwey, 262 Kan. 524, 941 P.2d 365 (1997).

55. Court's discretion to sentence consecutively under subsection (a) must be exercised on the record. State v. Christensen, 23 Kan. App. 2d 910, 914, 937 P.2d 1239 (1997).

56. Imposition of consecutive sentence for crime committed after defendant escaped from custody upheld. State v. Manning, 24 Kan. App. 2d 506, 507, 947 P.2d 452 (1997).

57. Subsection (c) applies when probation is revoked and defendant is sentenced on new conviction on the same day. State v. Koehn, 266 Kan. 10, 11, 966 P.2d 63 (1998).

58. Department of corrections correctly calculated an aggregated sentence as sentence requiring longest period of incarceration to reach inmate's maximum date. Carnes v. Hannigan, 27 Kan. App. 2d 237, 3 P.3d 548 (2000).

59. No ex post facto violation because of 1983 amendment since section does not apply until subsequent offense occurs. Thomas v. Hannigan, 27 Kan. App. 2d 614, 6 P.3d 933 (2000).

60. Definition of conditional release date is stated in terms of maximum sentence not a sentence adjusted by maximum sentence credit. Smith v. McKune, 31 Kan. App. 2d 43, 59 P.3d 1038 (2002).

61. Court may impose consecutive sentences for misdemeanor offenses. State v. Huff, 277 Kan. 195, 83 P.3d 206 (2004).

62. No error in nunc pro tunc order that present felony sentence was to be served consecutively to prior felony conviction. Love v. State, 280 Kan. 553, 124 P.3d 32 (2005).

63. Discussed in challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentences. State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374, 377, 378, 162 P.3d 18 (2007).

64. Cited in opinion holding that juveniles have a constitutional right to jury trials. In re L.M., 286 Kan. 460, 467, 186 P.3d 164 (2008).

65. Cited; probation violation and incarceration for new felony; state does not waive probation violation if it lodges detainer. State v. Hall, 287 Kan. 139, 155, 195 P.3d 220 (2008).

66. Cited; trial court had jurisdiction to correct illegal sentence that favored defendant. State v. McCarley, 287 Kan. 167, 174, 195 P.3d 230 (2008).

67. Cited; motion to correct alleged illegal sentence; held, no district court error. State v. Howard, 287 Kan. 686, 694, 198 P.3d 146 (2008).

68. Cited in decision holding that juvenile adjudications are excluded from cases calling for consecutive adult sentences. State v. Crawford, 39 Kan. App. 2d 897, 900, 903, 185 P.3d 315 (2008).

69. Cited; defendant's attorney must advise if statutes preclude judge from making concurrent sentence without finding manifest injustice. Wilkinson v. State, 40 Kan. App. 2d 741, 742, 195 P.3d 278 (2008).

70. The 6 th Amendment does not inhibit states from assigning to judges finding of facts necessary to impose consecutive sentences. Oregan v. Ice, 129 S. Ct. 711, 715 (2009).

71. Drug treatment sanction trumps the prison sanction outlined in K.S.A. 21-4603d (f)(3). State v. Casey, 42 Kan. App. 2d 309, 211 P.3d 847 (2009).

72. Kansas law requires that a sentence for a later conviction be served consecutively to the sentence imposed or reinstated after probation, parole, or conditional release has been revoked. McCormick v. Kline, 572 F.3d 841 (10 th Cir. 2009).

73. Case remanded for factual determination whether the defendant was on release for a felony when he committed the crimes in this case. State v. Taylor, 299 Kan. 5, 319 P.3d 1256 (2014).

74. Section does not require that an "other state court" sentence be issued by a court in a state other than Kansas. State v. Quested, 302 Kan. 262, 267, 352 P.3d 553 (2015).