1 Kan. App. 2d 607 - State v. Snook’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As the Kansas Supreme Court has indicated, however, probation represents a grace period during which the defendant has the opportunity to demonstrate that rehabilitation can be achieved without incarceration. See, In re Patterson, 94 Kan. 439 , 146 Pac. 1009 ; In re Henry Millert, Petitioner, 114 Kan. 745 , 220 Pac. 509 ; In re McClane, 129 Kan. 739 , 284 Pac. 365 . The court stated in In re Millert, Petitioner, supra at 747, ‘The term of parole [by the court] is one of probation, offered the delinquent as a substitute for punishment in the usual way. One who accepts the substitute does so subject to all the conditions imposed by law and by the court.’ When the petitioner in that case failed to satisfy all of the conditions of parole he was subject to confinement under the original sentence ‘precisely as though no parole had been granted.’ (Id.) See also, In re McClane, supra, where the court refused to allow credit for time served in jail as a condition of probation; and Bowers v. Wilson, 143 Kan. 732 , 56 P.2d 1212 , where the court denied petitioner credit for time spent on probation.” 1 Kan. App. 2d at 609 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Wheaton · Hudson v. State

2. ““Appellant first argues that our statutes require that time spent on probation be credited on the sentence. Our review of the statutes, however, leads us to conclude that the legislature did not intend that probation time be counted toward service of the sentence. K.S.A. 22-3716(2) provides that ‘[i]f the violation [of probation] is established, the court may continue or revoke the probation or suspension of sentence, and may require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence, and, if imposition of sentence was suspended, may impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed.’ (Emphasis added.) The emphasized language on its face authorizes the court to require service of the sentence in full, without regard to time spent on probation. The authority to require service of ‘any lesser sentence’ would permit the court to give consideration to time spent on probation, but does not require it. Although the statute is very specific in authorizing alternative dispositions if the violation is established, it is silent concerning mandatory credit for time served on probation. Following generally accepted rules of statutory construction, the court presumes that such silence was not due to mere oversight but rather was the intended result of the legislature.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Babcock