Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Hankins

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 22, 2016No. 109123Published

1DissentStegall, J.

I would affirm the lower court’s application of the invited error doctrine in this case. “The general rule regarding review of an illegal sentence is that '[a] defendant who invites error by stipulating to his or her criminal history cannot request a correction of sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 after pronouncement of sentence.’” State v. Vandervort, 276 Kan. 164, 175-76, 72 P.3d 925 (2003) (quoting State v. McBride, 23 Kan. App. 2d 302, Syl. ¶ 3, 930 P.2d 618 [1996]). The Vandervort rule arose in part out of the statutory mandate that a defendant notify the court if he or she objects to the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. WardSupreme Court of Kansas · 2011
  2. State v. DickeySupreme Court of Kansas · 2015
  3. State v. VandervortSupreme Court of Kansas · 2003
  4. State v. NealSupreme Court of Kansas · 2011
  5. State v. WeberSupreme Court of Kansas · 2013

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API