Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 Kan. App. 2d 9 - State v. Boswell

30 Kan. App. 2d 9 - State v. Boswell’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

22 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Gould · Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners · Board of County Commissioners v. McGraw Fertilizer Service, Inc. · 392 So. 2d 54 - Jolly v. State · State v. Wills

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

  1. “[Wjhen a plea agreement includes an agreement to recommend to the court an illegal sentence, the sentencing court imposes the recommended but illegal sentence, and the illegal sentence impermissibly increases the defendant’s term of imprisonment, the State may either allow the defendant to withdraw his or her guilty plea, or agree that the illegal portion of the sentence be vacated and the defendant be resentenced to the proper lesser term.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘[D]ue to the fact that a post-conviction motion may be raised and ruled upon years after imposition, the state may no longer have the witnesses and other evidence necessary to pursue a trial after a defendant successfully has his judgment and sentence vacated. Therefore, in a situation involving a reduction of sentence in contravention of the plea bargain, the state should be given the option of either agreeing that both the judgment and sentence should be vacated and taking the defendant to trial on all original charges, or agreeing that only the excessive sentence should be vacated, while having the judgment stand and allowing the defendant to be resentenced . . . .’ 392 So. 2d at 56 .” Boswell, 30 Kan. App. 2d at 14 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Generally, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider sentencing appeals when the sentence is the result of an agreement between the State and the defendant and the sentencing court approves the sentence on the record. K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(2); State v. Starks, 20 Kan. App. 2d 179, 183 , 885 P.2d 387 (1994). However, where K.S.A. 21-4721(c) applies, we may consider a claim that the sentence is illegal. State v. Ware, 262 Kan. 180 , Syl. ¶ 2, 938 P.2d 197 (1997). The sentence is illegal because the basis for it has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; drus, there is no statutory authority to impose the sentence. “Boswell’s sentence was illegal and must be vacated.” 30 Kan. App. 2d at 11 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.