Kansas Senate Bill SB358

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/26
• Refer: 1/22/26
• Report Pass: 2/4/26
• Engrossed: 2/12/26
• Refer: 2/12/26
• Report Pass: 3/10/26
• Enrolled: 3/20/26
• Passed: 3/27/26

Caption

Requiring individuals convicted of certain felonies to be held without bond in the county jail until sentencing.

Summary

SB 358 amends Kansas law governing release after conviction and before sentencing. Under current law, a person convicted of a crime and awaiting sentence or appeal may be released if the court finds the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger. The bill creates a mandatory detention rule for people convicted of the most serious offenses: any off-grid felony, any nondrug person felony severity level 1 through 4, and any drug felony severity level 1 or 2. For those covered offenses, the bill requires that any pretrial bond be immediately revoked and that the person be held without bond in the county jail until sentencing. If the person was already in custody without bond, the court must modify the bond status so the person remains held without bond until sentencing. The bill leaves in place the existing procedures for release pending appeal and for appeals from district magistrate court convictions, but it narrows judicial discretion in the post-conviction, pre-sentencing period for the specified felony categories.

Impact

The bill amends K.S.A. 22-2804 and repeals the existing version of that statute, changing Kansas criminal procedure by making detention mandatory for certain high-level felony convictions before sentencing. It affects defendants convicted of the listed offenses, county jails that would house them, prosecutors and defense counsel handling post-conviction release issues, and judges who would no longer have discretion to set bond for those cases before sentencing.

Sentiment

The voting history suggests strong overall support for the bill. It passed the Senate unanimously and later passed the House by a wide margin, indicating broad bipartisan agreement with the policy of requiring detention for certain serious felony convictions. The House did reject one amendment, which suggests there was some disagreement over whether and how the bill should be modified, but not over the bill’s core purpose.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to have been the scope and rigidity of the mandatory no-bond requirement. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a public-safety measure ensuring that people convicted of the most serious felonies remain in custody until sentencing, while opponents or amendment sponsors may have been concerned about limiting judicial discretion or applying automatic detention too broadly. The rejected House amendment by Representative Boatman indicates at least some effort to alter the bill, though the final vote shows that effort did not prevail.