WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2401

Providing that prior convictions of a crime that is determined unconstitutional by an appellate court shall not be used for criminal history scoring purposes unless the basis of the determination of unconstitutionality by the appellate court is later overruled or reversed.

2025-2026 Regular Session

HB 2401 stops counting convictions tied to statutes later ruled unconstitutional in criminal history scoring, unless that unconstitutionality is later reversed.

Died in Committee
#crimes #punishmentandcriminalprocedure
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2401

Summary — HB 2401 (Kansas)

Providing that prior convictions based on statutes later found unconstitutional by an appellate court shall not be used for criminal history scoring unless that appellate holding is later overruled or reversed

Purpose / Intent

HB 2401 amends Kansas sentencing law (K.S.A. 21-6810) to prevent courts from counting prior convictions that were based on a statute later held unconstitutional by an appellate court when calculating an offender’s criminal history score for sentencing—unless the appellate court’s basis for finding the statute unconstitutional is subsequently overruled or reversed by the Kansas Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court. The intent is to ensure that convictions tied to unconstitutional statutes do not unfairly worsen future sentencing exposure.

Key provisions

  • Amends K.S.A. 21-6810 (criminal history scoring rules).
  • Adds/clarifies subsection (d)(9): prior convictions for a crime defined by a statute that has since been determined unconstitutional by an appellate court shall not be used for criminal history scoring purposes.
  • Exception: such prior convictions may be counted if the basis for the appellate court’s determination of unconstitutionality is later overruled or reversed by an opinion or order of the Kansas Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Retains other existing criminal-history scoring rules (decay factors, what convictions are counted, etc.).
  • Includes standard bill enactment language (the bill repeals the current K.S.A. 21-6810 and takes effect upon publication).

Who is affected

  • People facing sentencing in Kansas courts whose criminal history might include convictions that were later tied to statutes found unconstitutional by an appellate court.
  • Judges and sentencing authorities who apply the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines and criminal history grids.
  • Court administrative staff, probation officers, the Kansas Department of Corrections, and defense/prosecution offices (for calculation of guideline scores and plea/sentencing negotiations).

Practical impact

  • May reduce criminal history points for affected defendants, potentially lowering guideline sentence ranges, reducing incarceration exposure, or affecting probation/parole outcomes.
  • Applies to convictions already on record if they meet the statutory criteria (i.e., conviction under the statute later found unconstitutional by an appellate court).
  • If higher courts (KS Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court) later reverse the appellate decision, the prior convictions may again be used for scoring.

Fiscal impact and implementation

  • Fiscal Note (Kansas Division of the Budget, March 11, 2025): enactment would have a minimal fiscal effect that can be absorbed within existing resources (Office of Judicial Administration).
  • Implementation will require adjustments to criminal history scoring procedures, record review when appellate decisions occur, and related training for court and corrections personnel.

Procedural status / timeline (selected)

  • Filed / Introduced: February 4, 2025.
  • Hearing scheduled: Wednesday, March 12, 2025, 3:30 PM — Room 582‑N (House Judiciary committee).
  • Read first time / Referred to committee: March 17, 2025 (and various committee referrals noted following introduction).
  • Statutory citation amended: K.S.A. 21-6810.

If you’d like, I can: (1) extract the precise redline text of the proposed amendment; (2) prepare a short memo on likely legal or practical issues (e.g., retroactivity questions, types of appellate decisions covered); or (3) produce a plain‑language explainer for impacted defendants and defense attorneys.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.