State v. Alvarez, 309 Kan. 203

Alvarez pled no contest to second-degree murder three days before trial; sentencing followed a presentence report and both parties recommended the standard-range sentence (253 months).
After plea, the State sought reimbursement of $451.19 in witness expenses and $421.88 for photographic trial exhibits used at the preliminary hearing.
The district court ordered Alvarez to pay the total $873.07 as court costs; defense counsel objected only to the photo/"office supply" expenses.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the district court had authority under K.S.A. 22-3801 and K.S.A. 28-172a to tax the exhibit expenses and that the trial court was required to do so.
Alvarez appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court raising (1) whether the district court had authority to tax trial preparation/exhibit expenses and (2) a constitutional challenge to using criminal history to set his presumptive sentence.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that exhibit expenses were properly taxable as court costs but reversed the Court of Appeals insofar as it held the statutes mandated assessment of such costs; it also found Alvarez preserved the constitutional claim and rejected it on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Alvarez)	Held
Whether trial preparation/exhibit expenses may be taxed as court costs	Court costs encompass prosecution expenses; photographic exhibit costs are related to prosecution and thus taxable	District court lacked authority to tax routine office/photofinishing expenses to defendant	Allowed: Court affirmed that such expenses may be taxed if reasonably related to prosecution, but rejected that statutes mandate taxation in every case
Whether Alvarez preserved his Sixth/Fourteenth Amendment challenge to using criminal history to set presumptive sentence	Issue was not preserved below; settled Kansas precedent forecloses claim	Alvarez argued he raised the issue to preserve it for federal review and that illegal sentence may be corrected anytime	Preserved: Court reversed Court of Appeals on preservation and considered the claim on the merits; held settled Kansas law controls and the challenge fails

Co. Com'rs v. Whiting, 4 Kan. 273 (explaining convicted defendants are liable for prosecution costs)
State v. Shannon, 194 Kan. 258 (confirming defendant liable for prosecution and defense costs)
State v. Raschke, 289 Kan. 911 (interpretation of "shall" as mandatory vs. directory)
State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (Kansas precedent on using criminal history in sentencing)
State v. Fisher, 304 Kan. 242 (addressing sentencing and related constitutional issues)
State v. Swint, 302 Kan. 326 (standards for review of preservation/abandonment questions)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. Supreme Court decision framing judicial fact-finding and sentencing challenges)