15 Kan. App. 2d 4 - State v. Moon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““K.S.A. 1989 Supp. 21-4603(3)(a) provides that ‘any time within 120 days after a sentence is imposed . . . the court may modify such sentence . . . and shall modify such sentence if recommended by the state reception and diagnostic center.’ (Emphasis added.) The statute comes into play only after a defendant has been charged, convicted, and sentenced. It acts to regulate the steps by which a defendant convicted of a crime is punished and therefore, by definition, is a procedural criminal law. The statute does not alter the punishment itself. This fact becomes particularly clear in cases in which SRDC has recommended probation. Probation is defined as a procedure whereby a defendant, found guilty of a crime, is released by the court after imposition of sentence, without imprisonment, subject to various conditions. K.S.A. 21-4602(3). Probation is separate and distinct from sentencing. State v. Dubish, 236 Kan. 848 , Syl. ¶ 2, 696 P.2d 969 (1985). “We are mindiul of the fact that another panel of this court recently determined the 1989 amendment to 21-4603(3)(a) is a substantive change which only operates prospectively to offenses committed after its effective date. State v. Marks, 14 Kan. App. 2d 594 , 796 P.2d 174 (1990), rev. denied 247 Kan. 706 (September 20, 1990). See State v. Sylva, 14 Kan. App. 2d 609 , 795 P.2d 947 (1990), rev. granted 247 Kan. 706 (September 20, 1990). In Marks , the court found the 1989 amendment ‘materially limits the court’s sentencing discretion an”

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

2. ““The statute requires that the court follow the SRDC recommendation unless the court makes the two findings set forth in the statute. It naturally follows that a recommendation by SRDC must first be made. . . . Absent an unequivocal recommendation for modification by the SRDC, the court has discretion in modifying sentence and commits no error in refusing modification of sentence absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Moon, 15 Kan. App. 2d 4, 10 , 801 P.2d 59 (1990), rev. denied 248 Kan. 998 , disapproved on other grounds State v. Sutherland, 248 Kan. 96 , 804 P.2d 970 (1991).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 17 Kan. App. 2d 340 - State v. Dugan