State v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Wilson

634 P.2d 1078, 230 Kan. 287

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedOctober 23, 1981

Docket52,243

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 634 P.2d 1078 (State v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Wilson, 634 P.2d 1078, 230 Kan. 287 (kan 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Holmes, J.:

The Kansas Court of Appeals in this action stated:

“[F]or the enhancement of the sentence of a defendant as a third offender under K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 21-4504(2), it is necessary that each succeeding offense be committed after conviction for the preceding offense. Otherwise stated, it is required that there be the commission and conviction of one offense, followed by the commission and conviction of a second offense, followed by commission of the principal offense upon conviction of which sentence enhancement is sought.” State v. Wilson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 302, 306, 627 P.2d 1185 (1981).

A petition for review of that holding was filed by the State of Kansas and granted by this court. In addition to the facts as set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the parties have now stipulated to additional facts concerning the prior felony convictions which formed the basis for the sentencing of the defendant as a third offender under K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 21-4504(2). The parties have stipulated in this court that the defendant was convicted on August 10, 1977, in Barton County for the felony theft of an automobile committed on May 29, 1977, and the defendant was convicted on December 20, 1977, in Ellsworth County for a forgery committed on May 29, 1977. We conclude that such additional facts, while informative, do not alter the result reached by the Court of Appeals.

*288 After full consideration of the entire record, we conclude that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct and we hereby adopt its opinion, modified only as affected by the additional facts stipulated to by the parties, as the opinion of this court.

The decision of the Court of Appeals in State v. Wilson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 302, 627 P.2d 1185 (1981), is affirmed and the case is remanded to the district court for resentencing in accordance with the directions of the Court of Appeals.

Miller, J., not participating. McFarland, J., dissenting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Holmes, J.:

The Kansas Court of Appeals in this action stated:

“[F]or the enhancement of the sentence of a defendant as a third offender under K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 21-4504(2), it is necessary that each succeeding offense be committed after conviction for the preceding offense. Otherwise stated, it is required that there be the commission and conviction of one offense, followed by the commission and conviction of a second offense, followed by commission of the principal offense upon conviction of which sentence enhancement is sought.” State v. Wilson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 302, 306, 627 P.2d 1185 (1981).

A petition for review of that holding was filed by the State of Kansas and granted by this court. In addition to the facts as set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the parties have now stipulated to additional facts concerning the prior felony convictions which formed the basis for the sentencing of the defendant as a third offender under K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 21-4504(2). The parties have stipulated in this court that the defendant was convicted on August 10, 1977, in Barton County for the felony theft of an automobile committed on May 29, 1977, and the defendant was convicted on December 20, 1977, in Ellsworth County for a forgery committed on May 29, 1977. We conclude that such additional facts, while informative, do not alter the result reached by the Court of Appeals.

*288 After full consideration of the entire record, we conclude that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct and we hereby adopt its opinion, modified only as affected by the additional facts stipulated to by the parties, as the opinion of this court.

The decision of the Court of Appeals in State v. Wilson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 302, 627 P.2d 1185 (1981), is affirmed and the case is remanded to the district court for resentencing in accordance with the directions of the Court of Appeals.

Miller, J., not participating. McFarland, J., dissenting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

634 P.2d 1078, 230 Kan. 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wilson-kan-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack