State v. Tims
Court of Appeals of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
Powell, J.:
The State appeals Daniel W. Tims’ driving under die influence (DUI) sentence, claiming it is illegal because the district court improperly excluded Tims’ prior DUI diversion from its calculation of Tims’ criminal history. The district court agreed with Tims that his prior uncounseled DUI diversion could not be *847counted in his criminal histoiy, making this DUI Tims’ second conviction rather than his third. Because we hold that Tims’ prior uncounseled DUI diversion should have been counted in his criminal histoiy, we reverse the district court and remand for resent-encing as a felony…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Scott v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Nichols v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Alabama v. SheltonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Stechschulte v. JenningsSupreme Court of Kansas · 2013
- State v. MossmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 2012
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. TimsSupreme Court of Kansas · 2015
- Manzano v. Kansas Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2014
- State v. TranCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2020
- State v. WinesCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2014