Correction of sentence

22-3504. Correction of sentence. (a) The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence. The defendant shall receive full credit for time spent in custody under the sentence prior to correction. Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, the defendant shall have a right to a hearing, after reasonable notice to be fixed by the court, to be personally present and to have the assistance of counsel in any proceeding for the correction of an illegal sentence. (b) Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. (c) For the purposes of this section: (1) "Illegal sentence" means a sentence: Imposed by a court without jurisdiction; that does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment; or that is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served at the time it is pronounced. A sentence is not an "illegal sentence" because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced. (2) "Change in the law" means a statutory change or an opinion by an appellate court of the state of Kansas, unless the opinion is issued while the sentence is pending an appeal from the judgment of conviction. (d) The amendments made to this section by this act are procedural in nature and shall be construed and applied retroactively. History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3504; L. 2017, ch. 62, § 9; L. 2019, ch. 59, § 15; May 23. Law Review and Bar Journal References: "Solidifying the Use of Juvenile Proceedings as Sentence Enhancement and Clarifying Second-Degree Murder," Kay Redeker, 37 W.L.J. 483 (1998). Survey of Recent Cases, 46 K.L.R. 922, 928 (1998). "Habeas Corpus in Kansas: The Great Writ Affords Postconviction Relief at K.S.A. 60-1507," Martha J. Coffman, 67 J.K.B.A. No. 1, 16 (1998). Criminal Procedure Edition, 47 K.L.R. 937 (1999). "Giving Credit when Credit is due, The Kansas law on jail time credit," Franklin R. Pierce, 69 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 22 (2000). "Criminal Procedure Survey of Recent Cases," 50 K.L.R. 901 (2002). "Criminal Procedure Survey of Recent Cases, Kansas Issue," 52 K.L.R. 771 (2004). "Criminal Procedure Survey of Recent Cases," 54 K.L.R. 895 (2006). CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Subsection (2) mentioned; defective record; revealed defendant not afforded timely trial; not supplemented to account for delay. State v. Higby, 210 Kan. 554, 558, 502 P.2d 740. 2. Applied; record of continuance granted at defendant's request; time during continuance excluded in computing time for trial. State v. Pendergrass, 215 Kan. 806, 809, 528 P.2d 1190. 3. Original sentence for Class E felony corrected to sentence for Class C felony; erroneous reference in information; conviction upheld. State v. Worth, 217 Kan. 393, 399, 537 P.2d 191. 4. Correction of unlawful sentence hereunder upheld; conviction of aggravated assault requires sentence of imprisonment. State v. Johnson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 750, 754, 634 P.2d 1137 (1981). 5. Secretary of corrections can only recommend reduction in a sentence; reinstatement of a legally entered sentence to correct an illegal modification not double jeopardy. Barr v. State, 8 Kan. App. 2d 173, 174, 175, 651 P.2d 975 (1982). 6. Cited; where one convicted of crime has never been legally sentenced, proper sentence may be imposed later. State v. Osbey, 238 Kan. 280, 286, 288, 710 P.2d 676 (1985). 7. Cited; jail time credit (K.S.A. 21-4614) while in community corrections facility on probation, authority to commit discussed. State v. Fowler, 238 Kan. 326, 338, 710 P.2d 1268 (1985). 8. Differences between subsections examined; sole purpose of (2) is to minimize difficulties encountered in a K.S.A. 60-1507 action. State v. Thomas, 239 Kan. 457, 460, 461, 720 P.2d 1059 (1986). 9. Cited; defendant has no right to hearing on motion to modify sentence (K.S.A. 21-4603(b)) or be present if motion considered. State v. Jennings, 240 Kan. 377, 378, 379, 729 P.2d 454 (1986). 10. Direct appeal at any time from sentence imposed when purpose is to challenge legality of sentence examined. State v. D.L.P., 13 Kan. App. 2d 647, 650, 778 P.2d 851 (1989). 11. Consequences of third or subsequent conviction of driving with suspended license determined. State v. Harpool, 246 Kan. 226, 229, 788 P.2d 281 (1990). 12. Time during which probation may be revoked examined; probation period held limited to maximum sentence time. State v. Grimsley, 15 Kan. App. 2d 441, 444, 808 P.2d 1387 (1991). 13. Court may not vacate original sentence and impose harsher one; judgment of sentence effective upon pronouncement from bench. State v. Zirkle, 15 Kan. App. 2d 674, 677, 814 P.2d 452 (1991). 14. Inability of court to correct illegal sentence due to defendant's deportation examined; issuance of bench warrant mentioned. State v. Barraza-Flores, 16 Kan. App. 2d 15, 24, 819 P.2d 128 (1991). 15. Cited in holding once a sentence is imposed, court is powerless to vacate that sentence and impose a harsher sentence. State v. Royce, 252 Kan. 394, 396, 397, 845 P.2d 44 (1993). 16. Cited; whether house arrest constitutes imprisonment under K.S.A. 21-3405b(b)(2) examined. State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. 926, 930, 939, 869 P.2d 729 (1994). 17. Whether defendant's guilty plea waived challenge to failure of state to charge specific over general offense examined. Labona v. State, 255 Kan. 66, 69, 872 P.2d 271 (1994). 18. Whether court's refusal to convert defendants' sentences to guidelines sentences constitutes imposition of illegal sentence examined. State v. Gonzales, 255 Kan. 243, 247, 874 P.2d 612 (1994). 19. Whether rape sentence where victim and defendant related should be vacated and remanded for aggravated incest resentencing examined. State v. Rowell, 256 Kan. 200, 214, 883 P.2d 1184 (1994). 20. Whether KDOC erred in considering defendant's criminal history on both burglary sentences in converting sentence to guidelines examined. State v. Bowen, 20 Kan. App. 2d 576, 577, 890 P.2d 374 (1995). 21. Whether K.S.A. 8-1567(f) controls over K.S.A. 21-4704(a) in determining penalties for third or later DUI conviction examined. State v. Webb, 20 Kan. App. 2d 873, 874, 893 P.2d 255 (1995). 22. Abandoned claim of error on direct appeal cannot be reasserted in second appeal. State v. Edwards, 260 Kan. 95, 917 P.2d 1322 (1996). 23. Misdemeanor convictions not included within definition of conviction event under K.S.A. 21-4720. State v. Reed, 23 Kan. App. 2d 661, 662, 934 P.2d 157 (1997). 24. Prosecution may not expand question reserved in its notice of appeal; appeal of illegal sentence hereunder necessary. State v. Taylor, 262 Kan. 471, 475, 939 P.2d 904 (1997). 25. Enhanced sentence under K.S.A. 21-4504 presumed regular and valid absent showing defendant did not have benefit of counsel at prior conviction. State v. Patterson, 262 Kan. 481, 483, 939 P.2d 909 (1997). 26. Nunc pro tunc order changing consecutive sentence to concurrent illegal where court otherwise lacked jurisdiction notwithstanding parties' agreement. State v. Vanwey, 262 Kan. 524, 941 P.2d 365 (1997). 27. Duty of trial court concerning motions to correct allegedly illegal sentence concerning hearing and appointment of counsel reviewed. State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 194, 946 P.2d 1375 (1997). 28. Trial court conversion of sentence of defendant sentenced to county jail constituted reversible error. State v. Sisk, 266 Kan. 41, 43, 966 P.2d 671 (1998). 29. Order of restitution entered six months after sentencing constituted an illegal sentence. State v. Cooper, 25 Kan. App. 2d 459, 460, 966 P.2d 688 (1998). 30. Stipulation by state to incorrect criminal history precludes state from later correcting sentence conversion as illegal sentence. Thompson v. State, 25 Kan. App. 2d 659, 660, 967 P.2d 361 (1998). 31. State cannot challenge severity level of petitioner's crime after entering into stipulation with defendant. Neal v. State, 25 Kan. App. 2d 705, 706, 971 P.2d 748 (1998). 32. While court has duty to examine motion to correct alleged incorrect sentence to determine if substantial issues of law or fact are raised, statute may not be used to raise appellate issues previously abandoned or adversely determined. State v. Johnson, 269 Kan. 594, 599, 7 P.3d 294 (2000). 33. State has burden of proving constitutional validity of prior convictions to enhance a sentence; upon claim of lack of benefit of counsel at prior convictions, defendant has burden of showing lack of counsel. State v. Jones, 272 Kan. 674, 35 P.3d 887 (2001). 34. Resentencing of habeas petitioner for general rather than specific sex crime did not violate due process. Beem v. McKune, 317 F.3d 1175, 1181 (2002). 35. Original sentence reinstated; sentence within wrong sentencing grid block is not an illegal sentence when criminal history category was stipulated to by parties. State v. Oliver, 30 Kan. App. 2d 665, 46 P.3d 36 (2002). 36. Prior convictions were correctly included in defendant's criminal history score. State v. Brown, 32 Kan. App. 2d 24, 80 P.3d 404 (2003). 37. Sentence vacated and remanded for correction; under statute effective in 1984, defendant's sentence could only be doubled not tripled. State v. Walker, 277 Kan. 849, 89 P.3d 920 (2004). 38. Nunc pro tunc order may not be used to determine defendant's sentence. State v. Mebane, 278 Kan. 131, 91 P.3d 1175 (2004). 39. McAdam, 277 Kan. 136, will not be applied retroactively but case returned to trial court for determination whether defendant was advised of right to appeal and ever requested appeal be filed. State v. Singleton, 33 Kan. App. 2d 478, 104 P.3d 424 (2005). 40. No error in trial court's refusal to grant defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence; no need to appoint counsel and hold hearing; denied on res judicata grounds. State v. Jones, 279 Kan. 809, 112 P.3d 123 (2005). 41. Court's failure to make findings pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4606 does not make sentence illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504. State v. Rojas, 280 Kan. 931, 127 P.3d 247 (2006). 42. Failure to make explicit considerations when making initial assessments under K.S.A. 22-4513 not an illegal sentence. State v. Robinson, 281 Kan. 538, 546, 132 P.3d 934 (2006). 43. Reversal of defendant's conviction not available relief under the statute. State v. Nash, 281 Kan. 600, 602, 133 P.3d 836 (2006). 44. Claim that defendant's sentences are multiplicitous did not come within the narrow definition of illegal sentence. State v. Edwards, 281 Kan. 1334, 1341, 136 P.3d 1251 (2006). 45. Illegal sentence includes sentence wherein defendant was assigned incorrect criminal history. State v. Donaldson, 35 Kan. App. 2d 540, 542, 133 P.3d 154 (2006). 46. Sentence based on incorrect criminal history is illegal sentence correctable by district court. State v. Russell, 36 Kan. App. 2d 396, 399, 138 P.3d 1289 (2006). 47. A motion to correct an illegal sentence does not automatically require a full hearing; district court must make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented by the motion; illegal sentence defined. State v. Hoge, 283 Kan. 219, 223, 224, 225, 150 P.3d 905 (2007). 48. Complaints of trial errors are not challenges to the legality of a sentence and should have been asserted in a direct appeal. State v. Barnes, 37 Kan. App. 2d 136, 139, 149 P.3d 543 (2007). 49. Defendant may not use statute to untimely challenge constitutionality of Juvenile Offenders Code. State v. Williams, 283 Kan. 492, 496, 153 P.3d 520 (2007). 50. Sentence imposed which has overlapping or identical elements of crime of less severe penalty not "illegal". State v. Harp, 283 Kan. 740, 744, 156 P.3d 1268 (2007). 51. Inmate cannot use statute for collateral attack on his conviction. State v. Davis, 283 Kan. 767, 770, 156 P.3d 665 (2007). 52. Appellate court exercises de novo review over whether criminal sentence is illegal. State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374, 375, 162 P.3d 18 (2007). 53. Motion to correct sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 not a substitute for a direct appeal. State v. McCarley, 38 Kan. App. 2d 165, 172, 166 P.3d 418 (2007). 54. Failure to properly assess BIDS fees does not constitute an "illegal" sentence correctable at any time. State v. Inkelaar, 38 Kan. App. 2d 312, 318, 164 P.3d 844 (2007). 55. Cited in holding adult convictions reversed for failure to follow juvenile code; no district court jurisdiction. State v. Breedlove, 285 Kan. 1006, 1017, 179 P.3d 1115 (2008). 56. Cited; a denial of allocution does not render an imposed sentence illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504. State v. Heath, 285 Kan. 1018, 1019, 179 P.3d 403 (2008). 57. Denial of motion to correct illegal sentence upheld; court held movant was challenging his conviction. Deal v. State, 286 Kan. 528 to 530, 186 P.3d 735 (2008). 58. Cited; sentence for crime with identical elements with crime of less severe penalty not "illegal" as used in K.S.A. 22-3504. State v. Scoville, 286 Kan. 800 to 802, 188 P.3d 959 (2008). 59. Cited; imposition of BIDS attorney fees must be appealed within 10 days of judgment otherwise no appellate jurisdiction. State v. Ehrlich, 286 Kan. 923, 925, 189 P.3d 491 (2008). 60. Cited; motion to correct alleged illegal sentence; held, no district court error. State v. Howard, 287 Kan. 686, 687, 690, 691, 198 P.3d 146 (2008). 61. Cited in case where defendant improperly had sentence enhanced pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4705. State v. Unruh, 39 Kan. App. 2d 125, 130, 177 P.3d 411 (2008). 62. Cited in decision holding that juvenile adjudications are excluded from cases calling for consecutive adult sentences. State v. Crawford, 39 Kan. App. 2d 897, 898, 185 P.3d 315 (2008). 63. Double homicide convictions for capital murder under K.S.A. 21-3439(a)(6) and for first-degree premeditated murder held improperly duplicitous. Trotter v. State, 288 Kan. 112, 200 P.3d 1236 (2009). 64. Alleged illegal sentence upheld; Kansas sentencing guidelines act limits its application to crimes on July 1, 1993, or thereafter. State v. Davis, 288 Kan. 153, 200 P.3d 443 (2009). 65. Motion to correct illegal sentence denied; no error in summarily denying motion. State v. Pennington, 288 Kan. 599, 205 P.3d 741 (2009). 66. "Prior conviction event" and "within a single count" in K.S.A. 21-4642 construed and applied. State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793, 217 P.3d 15 (2009). 67. Sentencing under K.S.A. 21-4636 upheld; no correction of an illegal sentence called for under case facts. State v. Peirano, 289 Kan. 805, 217 P.3d 23 (2009). 68. Defendant's challenge to probation term and conditions; illegal sentence criteria discussed. State v. Schad, 41 Kan. App. 2d 805, 206 P.3d 22 (2009). 69. Illegal sentence properly corrected by reinstating the postrelease supervision period. State v. McKnight, 42 Kan. App. 2d 945, 219 P.3d 825 (2009). 70. Filing of a motion to correct an illegal sentence does not automatically entitle defendant to a hearing. State v. Dawson, 43 Kan. App. 2d 800, 231 P.3d 582 (2010). 71. Case remanded for evidentiary hearing for defendant's claim of invalidity of his prior convictions. State v. Neal, 292 Kan. 625, 258 P.3d 365 (2011). 72. A sentence of lifetime offender registration when a defendant has only one eligible conviction does not conform to the statutory scheme and is illegal. State v. Denmark-Wagner, 292 Kan. 870, 258 P.3d 960 (2011). 73. Defendant's due process rights in the juvenile waiver proceeding not violated; sentence is not illegal. State v. Jones, 292 Kan. 910, 257 P.3d 268 (2011). 74. Claim challenging sufficiency of complaint and not legality of sentence cannot be raised in motion to correct illegal sentence. State v. Sims, 294 Kan. 821, 280 P.3d 780 (2012). 75. The defendant was properly certified as an adult; the district court had jurisdiction and the sentence was lawful. Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573, 314 P.3d 876 (2013). 76. The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. State v. Reed, 50 Kan. App. 2d 1133, 336 P.3d 912 (2014). 77. Section is a vehicle to correct a sentence, not a mechanism to collaterally attack a conviction. State v. Gilbert, 299 Kan. 797, 801, 326 P.3d 1060 (2014). 78. A multiplicity claim is an attack on a conviction and cannot be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. State v. Noyce, 301 Kan. 408, 410, 343 P.3d 105 (2015). 79. A sentence imposed in violation of a constitutional provision does not fit the definition of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504. State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549, 553, 343 P.3d 105 (2015). 80. Failure by a defendant to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence does not prevent an appellate court from considering the issue. State v. Luarks, 302 Kan. 972, 975, 360 P.3d 972 (2015). 81. Sentence was illegally imposed where trial court did not consider the mandatory provisions of K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-6824 at time of sentencing. State v. Swazey, 51 Kan. App. 2d 999, 1006, 357 P.3d 893 (2015). 82. Defendant could still raise legal challenge to the classification of a prior adjudication for purposes of lowering his criminal history score for the first time on appeal, even though he stipulated to his criminal history score. State v. Mullens, 51 Kan. App. 2d 1114, 1116, 360 P.3d 1107 (2015). 83. Defendant may bring a motion to correct an illegal sentence after the sentence becomes final when a constitutional challenge results in determination that the defendant's criminal history score is incorrect. State v. Martin, 52 Kan. App. 2d 474, 485, 369 P.3d 959 (2016). 84. Defendant's stipulation or failure to object at sentencing will prevent the defendant from later challenging the existence of convictions listed in his or her criminal history, but a stipulation or lack of an objection regarding how those convictions should be classified or counted as a matter of law for the purpose of determining the defendant's criminal history score will not prevent a subsequent challenge under statute of the defendant's prior convictions. State v. Vasquez, 52 Kan. App. 2d 708, 712, 371 P.3d 946 (2016). 85. Motion for jail credit may be considered by district court as long as matter was not previously presented to the court at an earlier time and no appeal was taken. State v. Storer, 53 Kan. App. 2d 1, 7, 382 P.3d 467 (2016). 86. Doctrine of res judicata does not bar defendant from seeking relief from an illegal sentence. State v. Thomas, 53 Kan. App. 2d 15, 24, 383 P.3d 152 (2016). 87. District court may summarily deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence if the motion fails to raise substantial issues of law or fact. State v. Gray, 303 Kan. 1011, 1013, 368 P.3d 1113 (2016). 88. Defendant's claim that due process barred application of invited error doctrine to bar post-conviction review of sentence was not cognizable on motion to correct illegal sentence. State v. Hankins, 304 Kan. 226, 230, 372 P.3d 1124 (2016). 89. Defendant sought application of later caselaw to statute that was in effect at the time he was sentenced, but a claim that a term of punishment was later declared unconstitutional does not satisfy the requirements for finding a sentence illegal. State v. Lee, 304 Kan. 416, 372 P.3d 415 (2016). 90. District court has no authority to modify unchallenged sentences following remand by an appellate court except when modification is needed to correct arithmetic or clerical errors or if a sentence is determined to be illegal under this statute. State v. Tafoya, 304 Kan. 663, 667, 372 P.3d 1247 (2016). 91. Criminal sentence that is challenged on constitutional grounds does not fall under the definition of "illegal sentence." State v. Wood, 306 Kan. 283, 285, 393 P.3d 631 (2017). 92. Defendant is not entitled to a hearing on a motion to correct an illegal sentence if the motions, records and files conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief. State v. Collier, 306 Kan. 521, 529, 394 P.3d 1164 (2017). 93. Section does not apply when parole boards deny parole to a defendant because the denial of parole is not a sentence. State v. Buford, 307 Kan. 73, 75, 405 P.3d 1194 (2017). 94. The 2017 amendments to section should be applied retroactively because the amendment does not establish a new crime, does not modify the definition of an existing crime and the plain purpose is to define and limit the scope of statutorily created procedure. State v. Dawson, 55 Kan. App. 2d 109, 117, 408 P.3d 995 (2017). 95. District court may conduct a preliminary examination of a motion to correct an illegal sentence that does not involve substantial questions of law or fact without holding a hearing and not run afoul of the due process clause. State v. Hayes, 307 Kan. 537, 538-39, 411 P.3d 1225 (2018). 96. The decision in State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552, 412 P.3d 984 (2018), was not a change in the law within the meaning of the 2017 amendment to the definition of an illegal sentence. State v. Smith, 56 Kan. App. 2d 343, 430 P.3d 58 (2018). 97. Motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot be used to collaterally attack the district court's evidentiary finding of a probation violation. State v. Horton, 308 Kan. 757, 761, 423 P.3d 548 (2018). 98. Hearsay and evidentiary rules argument did not fit within the statutory definition of an illegal sentence, so the argument could not be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. State v. Alford, 308 Kan. 1336, 1340, 429 P.3d 197 (2018). 99. A claim that a criminal sentence is illegal because it violates the United States Constitution cannot be brought under this statute. State v. Samuel, 309 Kan. 155, 157, 432 P.3d 666 (2019). 100. A claim that a criminal sentence is illegal because it violates the U.S. Constitution cannot be brought under K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1). State v. Donahue, 309 Kan. 265, 267, 434 P.3d 230, 231 (2019). 101. The legality of a sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced. A sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes. State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585, 439 P.3d 307 (2019). 102. A motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 that alleges a defect in the charging document does not give a court jurisdiction to reverse a conviction that has become a final judgment. State v. Robertson, 309 Kan. 602, 605, 439 P.3d 898 (2019). 103. A defendant's failure to raise the issue of jail credit on direct appeal does not foreclose a motion to correct a clerical error in entering the judgment. State v. Smith, 309 Kan. 977, 985, 441 P.3d 1041 (2019). 104. A prior conviction that was properly classified when the sentence became final did not become illegal when the law subsequently changed. State v. Newton, 309 Kan. 1070, 1073-74, 442 P.3d 489 (2019). 105. At the time of sentencing, prior out-of-state crimes did not need to be identical to Kansas counterparts to be classified as person crimes; subsequent changes in law do not make the sentence illegal. State v. Dubry, 309 Kan. 1229, 1231-33, 444 P.3d 328 (2019). 106. A sentence's legality is assessed when it is pronounced. A sentence that is legal when pronounced is not rendered illegal by a subsequent change in the law. State v. Tauer, 310 Kan. 1, 4, 444 P.3d 936 (2019). 107. Motions pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504 are treated like K.S.A. 60-1507 motions for purposes of determining whether a hearing and appointment of counsel for the movant are required. State v. Redding, 310 Kan. 15, 21, 24-25, 444 P.3d 989 (2019). 108. After a direct appeal is final, the legality of sentence is determined by law in effect at time sentence was pronounced. State v. McAlister, 310 Kan. 86, 444 P.3d 923 (2019). 109. A district court's consideration of the state's written response to motion to correct an illegal sentence or postsentence motion to withdraw a plea, standing alone, does not constitute a hearing. State v. Laughlin, 310 Kan. 119, 122, 444 P.3d 910 (2019). 110. The appellate court has the statutory authority to consider an issue of an illegal sentence for the first time on appeal. State v. Sartin, 310 Kan. 367, 446 P.3d 1068 (2019). 111. The legality of a sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time of sentencing, and a legal sentence does not become illegal because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced. State v. Bradford, 311 Kan. 747, 751, 466 P.3d 930 (2020). 112. A district court's noncompliance with the graduated sanctioning scheme set forth in K.S.A. 22-3716 does not fall within the definition of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504. State v. McCroy, 313 Kan. 531, 539, 486 P.3d 618 (2021). 113. An unconstitutional sentence is not an illegal sentence under the plain language of K.S.A. 22-3504. State v. Hayes, 312 Kan. 865, 481 P.3d 1205 (2021). 114. Motion to correct an illegal sentence is not a proper vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a sentence. State v. R. H., 313 Kan. 699, 702, 490 P.3d 1157 (2021). 115. Motion to correct an illegal sentence may be summarily denied without appointment of counsel when the motion, files, and records show defendant has no right to relief. State v. Richardson, 314 Kan. 132, 135, 494 P.3d 1280 (2021). 116. Erroneous certification of juvenile defendant as an adult cannot render a resulting sentence illegal under statute. State v. Valdez, 314 Kan. 310, 314, 498 P.3d 179 (2021). 117. District court imposed illegal sentence by ordering lifetime postrelease supervision and electronic monitoring with an off-grid indeterminate life sentence. State v. Boswell, 314 Kan. 408, 418, 499 P.3d 1122 (2021). 118. Sentencing court's failure to designate aggravating circumstances required by statute does not give rise to a claim of an illegal sentence. State v. Bedford, 314 Kan. 596, 600-01, 502 P.3d 107 (2022). 119. Claims of defective complaint are not properly raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. State v. Ross, 315 Kan. 804, 806 511 P.3d 290 (2022). 120. Claims of defective complaint are not properly raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under statute. State v. Deck, 317 Kan. 101, 106, 525 P.3d 329 (2023). 121. A journal entry of judgment may be corrected at any time by a nunc pro tunc order, but if there is no arithmetic or clerical error arising from oversight or omission, a nunc pro tunc order is not appropriate. State v. Turner, 317 Kan. 111, 116, 525 P.3d 326 (2023). 122. A motion to correct an illegal sentence may not be used to litigate a constitutional due process claim. State v. Newman-Caddell, 317 Kan. 251, 264, 527 P.3d 911 (2023). 123. In 2011, the law in Kansas required a district court to score pre-1993 out-of-state convictions according to the comparable Kansas offense. State v. Johnson, 317 Kan. 283, 284, 528 P.3d 258 (2023). 124. A sentencing court retains jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence or clerical error irrespective of a defendant's appeal. State v. Steinert, 317 Kan. 342, 356, 529 P.3d 778 (2023). 125. Res judicata applies except when subsequent developments in the law shine new light on the original question of whether the sentence was illegal when pronounced. State v. Moncla, 317 Kan. 413, 415, 531 P.3d 528 (2023). 126. A claim challenging the constitutional validity of a waiver relinquishing the right to have a jury determine the existence of upward departure aggravating factors falls outside the definition of an illegal sentence, overruling State v. Duncan, 291 Kan. 467, 243 P.3d 338 (2010). State v. Johnson, 317 Kan. 458, 468, 531 P.3d 1208 (2023). 127. Absent a valid illegal sentence claim, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a sentence resulting from an agreement between the state and the defendant that the sentencing court approves on the record. State v. Johnson, 317 Kan. 458, 468, 531 P.3d 1208 (2023). 128. Defendant was not serving an illegal sentence when the court clarified the duration of postrelease supervision after the court initially misspoke. State v. D.W., 318 Kan. 575, 582, 545 P.3d 26 (2024). 129. The law existing at the time of the original sentencing determines the legality of a sentence when a case arises from a motion to correct an illegal sentence. State v. Jacobson, 319 Kan. 70, 72, 552 P.3d 1239 (2024). 130. A defendant cannot use a motion to correct an illegal sentence to raise a constitutional claim. State v. Martis, 319 Kan. 650, 651, 556 P.3d 888 (2024). 131. Statutory limitation on double jeopardy is not an applicable statutory provision reviewable under the illegal sentence statute. State v. Cook, 319 Kan. 777, 780, 560 P.3d 1188 (2024). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026