65-7006.
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L. 1999, ch. 170, § 12; L. 2002, ch. 155, § 4; L. 2005, ch. 153, § 3; L. 2006, ch. 194, § 34; L. 2007, ch. 169, § 13; Repealed, L. 2009, ch. 32, § 64; July 1.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).
4. Offenses were overlapping rather than identical; following State v. Campbell, 279 Kan. 1, 106 P.3d 1129 (2005), defendant should be sentenced under lesser penalty of K.S.A. 65-4152. State v. Cherry, 279 Kan. 535, 112 P.3d 224 (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).
|
|