15 Kan. App. 2d 369 - State v. Bruner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 4 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On the same date the court filed Hamilton, [ 240 Kan. 539 , 731 P.2d 863 (1987)] it also filed State v. Bennett, 240 Kan. 575 , 731 P.2d 284 (1987). Bennett was also a direct appeal of sentences imposed after á plea of guilty, but the sentences imposed were minimum sentences. 240 Kan. at 577. The court made the following statement regarding its jurisdiction to hear the case: ‘The State argues this court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to State v. Haines, 238 Kan. 478 , 712 P.2d 1211 , cert. denied 479 U.S. 837 (1986), because the defendant fails to allege that the sentence is the result of partiality, prejudice, or corrupt motive. ‘State v. Haines, 238 Kan. 478 , was overruled in part by State v. Harrold, 239 Kan. 645 , 722 P.2d 563 (1986), which was decided after the parties’ briefs were submitted. In Harrold , a majority of this court held that, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(a), a direct appeal may be taken from a sentence imposed when the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere. This court further held that it is not necessary to allege the sentence is the result of partiality, prejudice, or corrupt motive in order to present a justiciable issue. 239 Kan. at 649 . Therefore, this court does have jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s challenges to the sentence imposed.’ Bennett, 240 Kan. at 576-77 . “While the court did not hold that the defendant could directly appeal from the imposition of a minimum sentence after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, it d”

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

2. ““Although the probation statute in effect when appellant was sentenced (K.S.A. 62-2239, now K.S.A. 1970 Supp. 21-4603) does not contain the specific statutory provision to limit appellate review of an order granting or denying probation, we adhere to our prior position. “The granting and revocation of probation is a matter entrusted by the legislature to the trial court and should remain there. An appellate court has no personal contact with an applicant for probation and is in no position to evaluate and determine the necessary factors upon which any probation should be based. Probation is a continuing relationship requiring constant supervision. This an appellate court cannot provide. “The granting of probation is exclusively a function of the trial court and we hold a decision of the trial court denying probation is not subject to review by an appellate court.””

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

3. ““As long as trial courts have discretion in sentencing criminal defendants, questions will arise regarding how that discretion was exercised. Trial courts are required by statute to consider those factors set forth in K.S.A. 21-4606. Allowing appeals from even minimum sentences will insure that criminal sentences are imposed in accord with K.S.A. 21-4606(2).” 15 Kan. App. 2d at 372 .”

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