Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Nonsupport of Children: Criminal Prosecution as an Alternative," Michael W. Laster, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XV, No. 5, 27, 28 (1992).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Classification of crimes and penalties; effect of legislation providing for reduction of sentences. 84-57.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Error in relying only on nature of crime and not considering K.S.A. 21-4601 and 21-4606 in overcoming presumptive sentence. State v. Linsin, 10 Kan. App. 2d 681, 684, 709 P.2d 988 (1985).

2. Whether or not probation is granted is not subject to appellate review, unless there is presumption of probation hereunder. State v. Brewer, 11 Kan. App. 2d 655, 665, 732 P.2d 780 (1987).

3. Cited; direct appeal of probation denial and sentencing following guilty or nolo contendere plea dismissed. State v. Dantzler, 12 Kan. App. 2d 181, 737 P.2d 69 (1987).

4. Presumption in favor of probation applicable, providing other requirements met, where first convictions are Class E felonies. State v. Knabe, 243 Kan. 538, 540, 757 P.2d 308 (1988).

5. Direct appeal from denial of probation following guilty plea allowed where statutory presumption of probation applies. State v. VanReed, 245 Kan. 213, 217, 777 P.2d 794 (1989).

6. Mere reference to and adoption of presentence investigation report insufficient to overcome legislative presumption herein. State v. Tittes, 245 Kan. 708, 715, 784 P.2d 359 (1989).

7. Consequences of third or subsequent conviction of driving with suspended license determined. State v. Harpool, 246 Kan. 226, 229, 788 P.2d 281 (1990).

8. Change in statute expanding presumptive sentences is substantive in nature and applicable prospectively. State v. Sylva, 14 Kan. App. 2d 609, 612, 795 P.2d 947 (1990); 248 Kan. 118, 804 P.2d 967 (1991).

9. Where presumption of probation overcome, trial court required to apply provisions of K.S.A. 21-4606b. State v. Atwell, 14 Kan. App. 2d 752, 754, 798 P.2d 517 (1990).

10. Presumptive sentencing statutes examined; trial court's obligation to read article 46 as a whole noted. State v. Ray, 15 Kan. App. 2d 1, 800 P.2d 148 (1990).

11. Effect of K.S.A. 21-4603(3)(a) on court's discretion to modify sentence, nature of state reception and diagnostic center recommendation examined. State v. Moon, 15 Kan. App. 2d 4, 801 P.2d 59 (1990).

12. Mandate in 1989 Supp. 21-4603(3)(a) (now 1990 Supp. 21-4603(4)(a)) regarding sentence modification examined in depth; held constitutional. State v. Reed, 248 Kan. 792, 801, 811 P.2d 1163 (1991).

13. Presumptive probation provisions herein compared with specific requirement of K.S.A. 8-262(a)(3) imposing mandatory five-day imprisonment (minor over 14 years of age). State v. Frazier, 248 Kan. 963, 965, 811 P.2d 1240 (1991).

14. Appellate court review of minimum sentence not involving presumptive probation after plea of guilty or nolo contendere examined. State v. Salinas, 15 Kan. App. 2d 578, 583, 811 P.2d 525 (1991).

15. Overcoming presumption of probation contained herein by evaluating all circumstances and factors in K.S.A. 21-4601 and 21-4606 examined. State v. Ribadeneira, 15 Kan. App. 2d 734, 748, 817 P.2d 1105 (1991).

16. Matters improperly considered in rebutting presumptive sentencing examined; deportations and unlawful entries into U.S. noted. State v. Barraza-Flores, 16 Kan. App. 2d 15, 819 P.2d 128 (1991).

17. When presumption is overcome, court must consider presumption of community corrections placement under K.S.A. 21-4606b. State v. Turner, 16 Kan. App. 2d 221, 225, 226, 820 P.2d 1251 (1991).

18. Presumptive probation sentencing statute compared with and distinguished from presumptive sentencing to community corrections. State v. Turner, 251 Kan. 43, 44, 833 P.2d 921 (1992).

19. Trial court's error noted in either not granting probation as recommended by Topeka correctional facility or making findings required by K.S.A. 21-4603. State v. Dugan, 17 Kan. App. 2d 340, 342, 836 P.2d 584 (1992).

20. Application of presumption to person with prior juvenile adjudication coupled with consideration of K.S.A. 21-4601 and 21-4606 examined. State v. Smith, 18 Kan. App. 2d 297, 851 P.2d 397 (1993).

21. Whether defendant waives consideration of sentencing factors and presumptive sentence when requesting plea bargain sentence recommendation examined. State v. Moses, 255 Kan. 56, 58, 872 P.2d 265 (1994).

22. Whether court's refusal to convert defendants' sentences to guidelines sentences constitutes imposition of illegal sentence examined. State v. Gonzales, 255 Kan. 243, 247, 847 P.2d 612 (1994).

23. Whether district court erred in failing to consider presumptive sentence of assignment to community corrections examined. State v. Segovia, 19 Kan. App. 2d 493, 494, 872 P.2d 312 (1994).

24. Whether trial court erred in failing to consider presumption of community corrections in sentencing defendant examined. State v. Henry, 19 Kan. App. 2d 805, 806, 876 P.2d 620 (1994).

25. Whether defendant sentenced after KSGA (K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq.) enactment for crimes committed before enactment is denied equal protection by preclusion of sentencing guideline retroactivity examined. State v. Fierro, 257 Kan. 639, 659, 895 P.2d 186 (1995).

26. Cited; juvenile adjudications may be considered in calculating offender's criminal history. State v. LaMunyon, 259 Kan. 54, 60, 911 P.2d 151 (1996).