Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3504

A motion to correct an illegal sentence filed more than 14 days after sentencing is treated as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion for procedural purposes.

State v. Ewing · filed 2021-03-12(a)

Turning to the facts of this case, we first note that it is undisputed that Ewing filed his motion to correct illegal sentence at issue here more than 14 days after his original sentencing in No. 88CR604 back in January 1989. As a result, although Ewing moved to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504, this court treats Ewing's motion as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion for procedural purposes.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of an illegal sentence after a direct appeal is final, but a sentence imposed in violation of Alleyne is not an illegal sentence within the section.

State v. Johnson · filed 2021-04-30

One of the procedural mechanisms discussed in Coleman is a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504. That statute allows courts to consider an illegal sentence at any time, which includes after a direct appeal is final. But what constitutes an illegal sentence is not open ended, and this court has made clear that "a sentence imposed in violation of Alleyne does not fall within the definition of an 'illegal sentence' that may be addressed by K.S.A. 22-3504." Coleman, 312 Kan. at 120 (citing State v. Brown, 306 Kan. 330, Syl. ¶ 1, 393 P.3d 1049 [2017]; State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549, Syl. ¶ 4, 343 P.3d 1161 [2015]). Johnson offers no argument that counters this holding in Coleman, Brown, and Moncla.

Section 22-3504(a) permits correction of an illegal sentence at any time while it is being served, allowing a defendant to challenge criminal-history classifications for the first time on appeal.

State v. Dean · filed 2021-05-07(a)

Although Dean did not challenge his criminal history score before the district court, an illegal sentence can be corrected at any time while the defendant's sentence is being served. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(a). ... Accordingly, Dean can challenge the classifications of his prior convictions for the first time on appeal.

Section 22-3504 permits a defendant to challenge the legality of a sentence for the first time on appeal from a probation revocation.

State v. Stubby · filed 2021-12-17

He correctly asserts he can challenge the legality of his sentence for the first time in an appeal from a probation revocation.

A sentence selected from the wrong sentencing grid is illegal and may be corrected even if its term falls within the proper grid block’s range.

State v. Lamia-Beck – Per Curiam – Affirmed – Pottawatomie · filed 2023-02-03(c)(1)

The fact the duration of the original, faulty sentence fell within the proper range is of no moment. It derived from the wrong grid and therefore did not conform with the governing statutory provision. As a result, it was illegal and could not be permitted to stand.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of a sentence imposed without jurisdiction, one that does not conform to the authorized punishment, or one ambiguous about when and how it is to be served.

State v. Jackson · filed 2024-10-11

"An illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 is one that (1) is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) does not conform to the statutory provision, either in the character or the term of authorized punishment; or (3) is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served."

Section 22-3504(a) permits a court to correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving it, allowing the issue to be considered despite no objection below.

State v. Lafayette · filed 2024-11-22(a)

Although Lafayette did not object to the district court's entry of judgment or its imposition of a sentence for the driving with a suspended license charge, he is effectively arguing that his sentence is illegal. And this court may correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving the sentence. K.S.A. 22-3504(a).

Section 22-3504(a) permits correction of an illegal probation sentence while the defendant is serving the lawful probation term; after that term expires, the court cannot resentence unless the original sentence is on appeal.

State v. Johnson · filed 2025-10-31(a)

The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving the sentence. K.S.A. 22-3504(a). ... The holding in Alonzo applies cleanly—the district court has jurisdiction to resentence Johnson on the criminal damage to property conviction only during the lawful period of probation, or if the original sentence is on appeal. Neither of those conditions apply here.

Whether prior DUI infractions were correctly classified for sentence enhancement is a question about the legality of the sentence under § 22-3504(c)(1).

State v. Patrick · filed 2026-01-16(c)(1)

In other words, the correct classification of the earlier DUI infractions goes to the legality of the sentence—whether that sentence "conform[s] to the applicable statutory provision." K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504 does not provide relief from KORA registration requirements, which are not part of a sentence, or from an allegedly unconstitutional conviction.

State v. Saunders · filed 2026-02-06

Saunders can not request relief from an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 because KORA requirements to register are not part of the sentence. State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733, 750, 415 P.3d 430 (2018). The definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that a criminal conviction is unconstitutional. State v. Kilpatrick, 306 Kan. 883, 885, 398 P.3d 854 (2017). Because Saunders' only claim is that the criminal threat conviction is unconstitutional, he does not indicate how his sentence is illegal under this statute.

Section 22-3504(a) permits correction of an illegal sentence while the defendant is still serving it, even when the defendant agreed to the criminal history score at sentencing and first challenges it on appeal.

State v. Allen · filed 2026-02-13(a)

Although Allen agreed with the district court's calculation of his criminal history score at sentencing, he is not prohibited from raising his challenge for the first time on appeal because an illegal sentence can be corrected at any time the defendant is still serving the sentence. See K.S.A. 22-3504(a); State v. Steinert, 317 Kan. 342, 349, 529 P.3d 778 (2023).

Section 22-3504(a) allows a defendant to challenge the legality of a sentence while serving it, including for the first time on appeal.

State v. Swinney · filed 2026-02-27(a)

But the legality of a sentence can be raised at any time while the defendant is serving the sentence, even for the first time on appeal. K.S.A. 22-3504(a).

A sentence imposing parole when the applicable statute requires postrelease supervision is illegal, and the deficient portion may be vacated and remanded for correction.

State v. Gettings · filed 2026-04-17(c)(1)

An illegal sentence is a sentence: (1) imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) that does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or the term of punishment; or (3) that is ambiguous about the time and manner in which it is to be served. K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1); State v. Mitchell, 315 Kan. 156, 158, 505 P.3d 739 (2022). ... We find that when a district court fails to impose mandatory postrelease supervision, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the deficient portion of the sentence and remand the case to the district court for imposition of the appropriate term of postrelease supervision.

Section 22-3504(3) treats a sentence that fails to comply with the governing sentencing statute as illegal, including a double departure that omits a required justification.

State v. Castillo-Calles · filed 2018-03-16(3)

A sentence that does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or the term of authorized punishment, is illegal under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3). ... If the court ignores the requirements of either step, the result is an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) treats a sentence as illegal if the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction, the sentence fails to conform to applicable statutory provisions, or it is ambiguous about when and how it is served.

State v. Odom · filed 2018-04-20(1)

An illegal sentence within the meaning of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(1) encompasses a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction, a sentence that fails to conform to the applicable statutory provisions (either in character or in terms of the authorized punishment), or a sentence that is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a court to correct an illegal sentence at any time, but does not permit modification of a lawful portion of the sentence.

State v. Arnold · filed 2018-10-26(1)

However, the court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. ... The district court did so and properly followed the law and the mandate of this court.

Section 22-3504(3)'s definition of an illegal sentence cannot be expanded to cover a sentence based on a criminal history category higher than the parties expected during plea negotiations.

State v. Williams · filed 2019-03-01(3)

Likewise, we may not tinker with clear statutory language, such as the definition of an illegal sentence in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3). ... Williams would have us impermissibly add to the statutory definition.

Section 22-3504(1) allows correction of an illegal sentence at any time and provides full credit for time spent in custody before correction.

State v. Samber · filed 2019-03-22(1)

Samber claims his sentence is illegal, and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(1) provides that the court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. However, under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(1), the remedy for a corrected sentence is "full credit for time spent in custody under the sentence prior to correction."

A sentence that does not conform to applicable statutory provisions is an illegal sentence under § 22-3504(a).

State v. Basgall · filed 2019-09-20(a)

An illegal sentence includes a sentence that does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(a).

A sentence is illegal under § 22-3504(3) if its character or punishment fails to conform to the relevant statute.

Levy v. State · filed 2019-10-04(3)

A sentence is illegal if: (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction when it imposed the sentence, (2) the sentence fails to conform to the relevant statute by its character or punishment, or (3) the sentence is ambiguous regarding the time and manner it is to be served.

Section 22-3504 does not permit correction at any time of a sentence claimed to violate a constitutional provision, because that claim does not make the sentence illegal under the section.

State v. Walker · filed 2020-01-10

We agree because a claim that a sentence violates a constitutional provision does not make the sentence illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504, allowing it to be corrected at any time.

Section 22-3504(1) permits correction at any time of a sentence based on an erroneous criminal history category.

State v. Canady · filed 2020-02-07(1)

A sentence based on an erroneous criminal history category is illegal and may be corrected at any time under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(1).

Section 22-3504(a) permits a defendant serving a sentence to challenge a criminal history score for the first time on appeal after probation revocation.

State v. Hicks · filed 2020-04-03(a)

Under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(a), an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time while a defendant is serving that sentence. This includes challenging a criminal history score for the first time on appeal following the revocation of a defendant's probation.

Section 22-3504(c) defines an illegal sentence to include one that does not conform to applicable statutory provisions; a sentence within the statutory grid is not illegal on that ground.

State v. McComber · filed 2020-05-01(c)

A sentence is illegal when it: • Is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; • does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or punishment; or • is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c). McComber's sentence is not illegal. The district court imposed the middle number in the grid box. His sentence conforms to the statutory requirements.

Section 22-3504(a) allows a court to correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving it.

State v. Vasquez · filed 2020-05-08(a)

"A court may correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence."

Section 22-3504(a) permits a defendant to challenge an allegedly illegal sentence still being served at any time, including on appeal after a limited remand.

State v. McMillan · filed 2021-02-19(a)

Although the sentencing issue exceeds the scope of our remand order to the district court and its review of the case, we take up the point, since defendants may at any time attack sentences they continue to serve.

Section 22-3504(a) permits correction of a sentence that omits a statutorily required postrelease-supervision term.

State v. Sheets · filed 2021-07-16(a)

That made the sentence as announced an illegal one that may be corrected later.

Section 22-3504(a) allows a defendant serving a sentence to challenge its legality for the first time on appeal from a probation revocation.

State v. Aschenbrenner · filed 2021-10-01(a)

First, Aschenbrenner correctly asserts that he can challenge the legality of his sentence for the first time in an appeal from a probation revocation. See State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217, 220, 380 P.3d 230 (2016); K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(a) (stating the court may correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving the sentence).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence based on a criminal history score supported by insufficient evidence as illegal.

State v. Phillips · filed 2021-12-17(c)(1)

Thus, when the trial court sentences an offender using the wrong criminal history score or using a criminal history score supported by insufficient evidence, the trial court imposes an illegal sentence upon the offender as such sentence does not conform with K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6811(e)(1)'s plain language.

Section 22-3504(a) permits correction of an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving it, including consideration of a challenge first raised on appeal.

Glasgow v. State · filed 2022-04-01(a)

A court may correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving the sentence. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(a). And a defendant may challenge a sentence even for the first time on appeal. State v. Hambright, 310 Kan. 408, 411, 447 P.3d 972 (2019). This court has reviewed similar claims under a similar procedural posture—see, e.g., Dulaney v. State, No. 122,681, 2021 WL 2603089, *3 (Kan. App. 2021) (unpublished opinion)—and we elect to do so here.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) permits a court to correct at any time a sentence that does not conform to the applicable statute in character or punishment.

State v. Hansen · filed 2022-05-13(c)(1)

Of note, under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1), we may correct a sentence that "does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment" at any time.

Section 22-3504 treats a sentence that fails to conform to an applicable sentencing statute as illegal and allows the court to correct it at any time.

State v. Lightfoot · filed 2022-10-28(c)(1)

Put simply, the original sentences in Cases 1 and 2 were illegal because they did not conform to K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6606(d). See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) ('''Illegal sentence' means a sentence . . . that does not conform to the applicable statutory provision."). As a result, the district court could correct those sentences at any time and did so by ordering them to run consecutive to Case 4 at resentencing.

Section 22-3504(1) does not require a hearing, the defendant’s presence, or appointed counsel during preliminary review of a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Peterson · filed 2019-03-08(1)

We hold that Peterson did not have a right to a hearing, to be present at a hearing, or to have counsel appointed to him for the two motions from which he has appealed.

Section 22-3504 requires a hearing, the defendant’s personal presence, and assistance of counsel when an illegal sentence is corrected.

State v. Barraza-Flores · filed 1991-06-21

Thus, the court in this case erred in failing to consider presumptive probation and, as a result, imposed an illegal sentence which must be corrected. Under K.S.A. 22-3504, when correcting an illegal sentence “[t]he defendant shall have a right to a hearing, ... to be personally present and to have assistance of counsel. ...”

Section 22-3504(1) does not treat an alleged breach of a plea agreement as an illegal sentence, so a motion resting on that claim raises no substantial issue requiring a hearing.

State v. Johnson · filed 2000-07-14(1)

Without passing on the merits of whether the State made statements inconsistent or contrary to its plea agreement, it is clear that the claimed illegality does not fit within the definition of “illegal sentence” as contemplated by K.S.A. 22-3504(1). Accordingly, the motion to correct an illegal sentence did not raise a substantial issue. No error or abuse of discretion is shown in the district court’s summary dismissal of the motion herein.

Section 22-3504 does not require appointment of counsel when the motion, files, and records present no substantial question of law or triable issue of fact.

State v. Redding · filed 2019-07-12

In short, the district court did not determine that Redding's motion, and the files and records of the case, presented a substantial question of law or triable issue of fact. Consequently, the district court was not statutorily required to appoint Redding an attorney under K.S.A. 22-3504.

An indigent movant who raises a substantial question of law or triable issue of fact in a motion to correct an illegal sentence must be appointed counsel.

State v. Laughlin video · filed 2019-07-12(1)

In sum, if an illegal sentence motion or postsentence plea withdrawal motion presents a substantial question of law or triable issue of fact and the movant is indigent, then the district court must appoint counsel to represent the movant.

Section 22-3504(1) gives a defendant the right to counsel and to be present at a hearing on an illegal-sentence motion only after preliminary review identifies a substantial issue requiring a formal proceeding.

State v. Smith · filed 2017-09-15(1)

As interpreted by our Supreme Court, K.S.A. 22-3504(1) provides a right to counsel and to be present at a hearing only for "proceeding[s]," and that doesn't cover when the district court makes a preliminary examination of an illegal-sentence motion to determine whether it presents a substantial issue requiring a more formal proceeding to resolve.

Section 22-3504(1) allows a court to deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence without a hearing if preliminary review finds no substantial question of law or fact; the movant has no right to counsel or to be present during that review.

State v. Campbell · filed 2017-12-15(1)

Construing the language as previously written, this court has consistently directed district courts considering a motion to correct an illegal sentence to conduct a preliminary examination of the motion to determine whether substantial questions of law or fact are raised by a motion. See State v. Gray, 303 Kan. 1011, 1013, 368 P.3d 1113 (2016). This review does not trigger the right to counsel and the movant's right to be present. See State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 196, 946 P.2d 1375 (1997). If substantial questions of law or fact are not found, the motion may be denied without a "proceeding"—i.e., a hearing at which the movant's presence would be required. 263 Kan. at 196.

Section 22-3504 does not require a hearing on a motion to correct an illegal sentence if the motion is obviously without merit.

State v. Fraley · filed 2016-06-10

Apart from the substantive issue, Fraley also argues the district court procedurally erred in denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence without conducting a hearing at which he personally was present. The Kansas Supreme Court has held that a district court need not hold a hearing if a motion to correct an illegal sentence is obviously without merit. See State v. Conley, 287 Kan. 696, 703, 197 P.3d 837 (2008); State v. Edwards, 281 Kan. 1334, 1342-43, 135 P.3d 1251 (2006). This is such a case.

Section 22-3504(1) does not require a substantive hearing on every motion to correct an illegal sentence; a court may dismiss the motion without a hearing if the case file conclusively shows that the defendant is not entitled to relief.

State v. Boatman · filed 2016-06-17(1)

Kansas courts have consistently rejected Boatman's argument that the plain language of K.S.A. 22-3504(1) requires a substantive hearing in all cases, and we do the same here.

Section 22-3504(1) allows a court to deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence without a hearing or the defendant being present when the motion raises no substantial issue of law or fact.

State v. Antalek · filed 2016-07-29(1)

Antalek failed to raise any substantial issue of law or fact justifying a hearing, therefore the district court did not err in failing to provide one and allow him to be present at it.

Section 22-3504(1) gives a defendant the right to be present when a hearing on a motion to correct an illegal sentence is held; summary denial without a hearing does not violate that right.

State v. Plunkett · filed 2016-07-29(1)

However, if the district court determines that a hearing is necessary, the defendant has a right to be present at the hearing and have assistance of counsel. K.S.A. 22-3504(1). ... Because the district court did not hold a hearing on Plunkett's motion, it follows that the district court did not violate Plunkett's right to be present at the hearing.

Section 22-3504(1) gives a defendant the right to be present with counsel when a hearing on a motion to correct an illegal sentence is necessary; summary denial without a hearing does not violate the right to be present.

State v. Parrott · filed 2016-08-05(1)

However, if the district court determines that a hearing is necessary, the defendant has a right to be present at the hearing and have assistance of counsel. K.S.A. 22-3504(1). ... Because the district court did not hold a hearing on Parrott's motion, it follows that the district court did not violate Parrott's right to be present at the hearing.

When a hearing on a motion to correct an illegal sentence is necessary, the defendant has the right to be present and assisted by counsel; a summary denial without a hearing does not violate the right to be present.

State v. Neal · filed 2016-07-29(1)

However, if the district court determines that a hearing is necessary, the defendant has a right to be present at the hearing and have assistance of counsel. K.S.A. 22-3504(1).

Section 22-3504(1) does not require automatic appointment of counsel or a hearing on every motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Gray · filed 2016-03-18(1)

Gray presents no convincing argument that a rule is now warranted for the automatic appointment of counsel or the conducting of a hearing in all motions to correct illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 does not require a full hearing on every motion to correct an illegal sentence; a court may summarily dismiss a motion that raises no substantial issue of law or fact.

State v. Denney · filed 2004-12-17(1)

Moreover, K.S.A. 22-3504 does not automatically require a full hearing upon the filing of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. ... “Rather, when a defendant files such a motion, the district court has a duty to make a preliminary examination of the motion to determine if substantial issues of law or fact are raised. If there are none, the court may summarily dismiss the motion.

Section 22-3504 permits denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence without a hearing or appointed counsel when the motion, files, and records conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief.

State v. Hoge · filed 2007-02-09(1)

First, the motion can be denied without a hearing or appointment of counsel if the district court determines the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief.

Section 22-3504 does not automatically require a hearing or appointed counsel when a motion to correct an illegal sentence is filed; the district court first examines the motion.

State v. Pennington · filed 2009-04-17

We first acknowledge that K.S.A. 22-3504 does not automatically require a full hearing, or appointment of counsel, upon the filing of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court first makes a preliminary examination of the motion.

Section 22-3504(1) does not automatically entitle a defendant who files a motion to correct an illegal sentence to a hearing, presence at a hearing, or appointed counsel.

State v. Dawson · filed 2010-05-21(1)

Because Dawson’s filing of a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion did not automatically entitle him to a hearing, presence at a hearing, or appointment of counsel, and because Dawson does not argue the merits of his underlying motion, we affirm the district court’s summary denial of Dawson’s K.S.A 22-3504 motion.

Section 22-3504(1) does not require a hearing and appointed counsel for every motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Makthepharak v. State · filed 2013-12-27(1)

We have consistently rejected Makthepharak’s argument that the plain language of K.S.A. 22-3504 requires a substantive proceeding and the assistance of counsel in all cases.

Section 22-3504 does not automatically entitle a person who moves to correct an illegal sentence to a hearing.

State v. Swafford – Johnson – Affirmed – Saline · filed 2017-06-02

A person filing a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence is not automatically entitled to a hearing.

A court may deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence without a hearing when the motions, records, and files conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief.

State v. Lee · filed 2017-06-09(1)

He contends the plain language of K.S.A. 22-3504(1) grants him the right to a hearing on his motion at which he is entitled to be personally present and to have the assistance of counsel. His argument is without merit because the motions, records, and files in his case conclusively show Lee is not entitled to relief.

Section 22-3504(1) does not require the defendant to attend a preliminary hearing that screens a motion to correct an illegal sentence for a substantial issue of fact or law.

State v. Riojas · filed 2017-06-16(1)

Here, the proceeding was a preliminary hearing to determine whether there was sufficient cause to move forward to an evidentiary hearing. Under the statutory interpretation in Hoge, the proceeding here was in relation to a motion to correct an illegal sentence and not "any proceeding for the correction of an illegal sentence." See K.S.A. 22-3504(1); Hoge, 283 Kan. at 224. The district court was not required to have Riojas present at the preliminary hearing. See Bruner v. State, 277 Kan. 603, 607, 88 P.3d 214 (2004); Verge, 2005 WL 2076503, at *2.

Section 22-3504 does not treat a violation of the defendant’s right to be present at sentencing as an illegal sentence.

State v. McCloud · filed 2018-12-07(3)

In sum, although a violation of the defendant's right to be present at sentencing may be grounds for reversal and resentencing if brought in a direct appeal from the sentence, such a violation does not render the sentence "illegal" under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(a) permits an improperly imposed term of lifetime postrelease supervision to be vacated so the sentencing judgment can be corrected without further proceedings.

State v. Contreras · filed 2021-09-17(a)

The improper imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision can be vacated, allowing the district court to correct the judgment without the need for further proceedings.

Section 22-3504(a) gives a defendant the right to counsel on a motion to correct an illegal sentence unless the motion and case record conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief.

State v. Steele · filed 2022-11-10(a)

Although a defendant does not have a constitutional right to be represented by counsel on a motion to correct illegal sentence, there is a statutory right to representation "[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief." K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(a).

Section 22-3504(1) permits a court to deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence without a hearing or appointed counsel when the motion, files, and records conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief.

State v. Gonzales · filed 2017-02-24(1)

The Kansas Supreme Court has ... further stated that, after conducting a preliminary examination, a district court "may dismiss a motion to correct an illegal sentence without a hearing or appointment of counsel if . . . the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief." ... There is no indication the Kansas Supreme Court is departing from its position in State v. Duke and its progeny.

Section 22-3504(a) allows a defendant to challenge the classification of a prior conviction used in a criminal history score for the first time on appeal.

State v. Grant-Adams · filed 2021-06-25(a)

He correctly states that a defendant may raise a legal challenge to the classification of a prior conviction for purposes of lowering a criminal history score for the first time on appeal under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(a).

Section 22-3504(1) permits a defendant to challenge a criminal history score for the first time on appeal, even without objecting at sentencing.

State v. Paegle · filed 2019-11-08(1)

Paegle may challenge his criminal history score for the first time on appeal.

Section 22-3504 permits a defendant to challenge the classification of prior convictions and the resulting criminal history score as an illegal sentence.

State v. Weston · filed 2021-05-14

Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504, a defendant may challenge the district court's classification of his or her prior convictions and the resulting criminal history score used to sentence the defendant under the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA).

Section 22-3504 permits a defendant to challenge a sentence as illegal if its crime severity level or criminal history score is erroneous.

State v. Lakey · filed 1996-07-05

Consequently, if either the crime severity level or the criminal history score are in error, a defendant could challenge his or her sentence as being an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(1) permits correction of a sentence that fails to conform to the sentencing statute because a prior adjudication was misclassified in calculating criminal history.

State v. West · filed 2016-04-01(1)

A sentence is illegal for purposes of K.S.A. 22-3504(1) if it: (1) is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) fails to conform to the sentencing statute, either in character or term of punishment; or (3) is ambiguous as to the time and manner required for serving the punishment. State v. Sims, 294 Kan. 821, Syl. ¶ 3, 280 P.3d 780 (2012). Because West's criminal history was incorrectly calculated based on the misclassification of the burglary adjudication as a person felony, he received a sentence that failed to conform to the governing statute. He is entitled to a sentence the district court imposes using a correctly determined criminal history.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of a sentence that does not conform to applicable sentencing statutes, including one based on an erroneously calculated criminal history score.

State v. Jones · filed 2018-09-28(3)

K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3) permits a party to seek correction of an illegal sentence if the sentence imposed "does not conform to the applicable statutory provision." Given that Jones was not at least 25 years of age at the time he committed his offenses of attempted first-degree murder, the statute providing for decayed juvenile adjudications, K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6810(d)(4), did not apply. As a result, Jones' revised sentence as to Count I did not conform to the KSGA statutes governing scoring of a defendant's criminal history. The sentence as to Count I was, therefore, illegal.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a challenge to a district court’s criminal history calculation to be raised for the first time on appeal.

State v. Landers · filed 2018-01-12(1)

Although Landers did not raise this issue before the district court, a challenge to a district court's criminal history calculation may be raised for the first time on appeal under K.S.A. 22-3504(1).

Section 22-3504(1) permits a defendant to challenge the classification of a prior adjudication for criminal history purposes for the first time on appeal.

State v. Baker · filed 2015-12-11(1)

It should first be noted that although Baker did not challenge the person classification of the 1990 Kansas juvenile burglary adjudication in the district court, he may do so for the first time on appeal under State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018, 350 P.3d 1054 (2015). In Dickey, our Supreme Court held that "a legal challenge to the classification of a prior adjudication for purposes of lowering [a defendant's] criminal history score . . . can be raised for the first time on appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504(1). [Citation omitted.]" 301 Kan. at 1034. Thus, we will consider the merits of Baker's arguments.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit correction of a prior conviction’s erroneous classification when the criminal history score and authorized sentence remain correct.

State v. Hadley · filed 2016-04-15(1)

In summary, although Hadley's 1983 burglary conviction was improperly classified as a person felony in violation of his constitutional rights as explained in Dickey, the erroneous classification did not render his sentence illegal because it did not cause his sentence to fail to conform to the applicable statutory provision in the term of the punishment authorized. Hadley's criminal history score was correct despite the incorrect classification of this particular prior conviction, so his sentence was not illegal.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a motion to correct a sentence that exceeds the authorized punishment because prior convictions were misclassified in calculating criminal history.

State v. Vasquez · filed 2016-04-29(1)

Thus, Vasquez’ claim falls squarely within the scope of relief afforded by the legislature under K.S.A. 22-3504; and his motion to correct an illegal sentence is properly before the court as a challenge to a “sentence that does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or the term of authorized punishment.”

Section 22-3504(1) permits a legal challenge to the classification of a prior adjudication for criminal history purposes to be raised for the first time on appeal.

State v. Gonzales · filed 2016-01-22(1)

Although Gonzales did not challenge the person classification of the 2002 Arizona burglary in the district court, he may do so for the first time on appeal. In State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018, 1034, 350 P.3d 1054 (2015), our Supreme Court held that "a legal challenge to the classification of a prior adjudication for purposes of lowering [one's] criminal history score[]can be raised for the first time on appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 22- 3504(1)."

Section 22-3504 permits an appellate court to consider a claim that a sentence is illegal for the first time on appeal.

State v. Fisher · filed 2016-04-22

Because Kansas courts are empowered to consider a motion to correct an illegal sentence for the first time on appeal, the panel should have considered the merits of Fisher's issue.

Section 22-3504(1) permits correction when an incorrectly calculated criminal history produces a sentence that fails to conform to the governing sentencing statute.

State v. Jones · filed 2016-03-25(1)

A sentence is illegal for purposes of K.S.A. 22-3504(1) if it: (1) is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) fails to conform to the sentencing statute, either in character or term of punishment; or (3) is ambiguous as to the time and manner required for serving the punishment. State v. Sims, 294 Kan. 821, Syl. ¶ 3, 280 P.3d 780 (2012). Because Jones' criminal history was incorrectly calculated based on the misclassification of the burglary convictions as person felonies, he received a sentence that failed to conform to the governing statute. He is entitled to a sentence the district court imposes using a correctly determined criminal history.

Section 22-3504 does not allow the State to correct a sentence conversion as illegal when the State stipulated to the erroneous criminal history on which the conversion was based.

Thompson v. State · filed 1998-11-20

We hold that where the State has stipulated to a defendant’s erroneous criminal history and the defendant’s sentence is converted on the basis of that criminal history, the State cannot later move to correct the sentence conversion as an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504.

A sentence within the wrong sentencing grid block is not an illegal sentence when the parties stipulated to the criminal history category.

State v. Oliver · filed 2002-05-17

This court has repeatedly held that a sentence within the wrong sentencing grid block under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, K.S.A. 21-4701 et seq., is not an illegal sentence when the criminal history category was stipulated to by the parties.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a motion to correct a sentence based on an incorrect criminal history score because the resulting sentence does not conform to the authorized punishment.

State v. Neal · filed 2011-08-05(1)

If the history score is incorrect, it follows that his resulting sentence cannot conform with the statutory provision in the term of the punishment authorized (State v. LaBelle, 290 Kan. at 532), and, consequently, is an illegal sentence. Accordingly, K.S.A. 22-3504 is the proper vehicle for his claim.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a legal challenge to the classification of prior convictions used to calculate a criminal history score even if the defendant stipulated to the score or failed to object at sentencing.

State v. Dickey · filed 2015-05-22(1)

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 histoiy score will not prevent a subsequent challenge under K.S.A. 22-3504(1) of his or her prior convictions.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a defendant to challenge the classification of prior convictions used to calculate a criminal history score for the first time on appeal.

State v. Keel · filed 2015-08-28(1)

Finally, we conclude that Keel, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504(1), can raise a challenge to the classification of his prior convictions for the first time on appeal.

A defendant may challenge the legal classification of a prior conviction through a motion to correct an illegal sentence despite having stipulated to that classification at sentencing.

State v. McGinn · filed 2016-02-26(1)

McGinn did not stipulate at sentencing to the facts surrounding his Colorado menacing conviction; he stipulated only to the legal conclusion that the conviction was a person felony. Thus, under Dickey, the district court erred in denying McGinn's motion to correct illegal sentence based solely on his stipulation at sentencing.

A defendant may challenge a criminal-history score through a motion to correct an illegal sentence, even when the challenge rests on constitutional grounds.

State v. Beck · filed 2016-07-01

A challenge to a criminal-history score, even if it's a constitutionally based challenge, can be properly brought in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 permits a motion to correct an illegal sentence when a prior conviction was misclassified in calculating the criminal history score, causing a sentence outside the authorized statutory punishment.

State v. Luton · filed 2016-07-22(1)

Luton does not challenge the constitutionality of a sentencing statute or his sentence. Instead, he asserts the district court erred in calculating his criminal history score which resulted in a sentence that does not comply with the applicable statutory provision in the term of punishment authorized. This claim is not procedurally barred under Warrior and is within the scope of relief afforded by K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a defendant to challenge the classification of prior convictions and the resulting criminal history score for the first time on appeal, even without an objection at sentencing.

State v. Dawson · filed 2016-05-13(1)

As a preliminary matter, we note that the Kansas Supreme Court has held that "[u]nder K.S.A. 22-3504(1), a defendant may challenge for the first time on appeal the classification of his or her prior convictions and/or the resulting criminal history score used to sentence him or her under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act." State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018, Syl. ¶ 3, 350 P.3d 1054 (2015); see K.S.A. 22-3504(1) ("The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time."). This is true even if the defendant failed to object to how the sentencing court classified his or her prior convictions. State v. Luarks, 302 Kan. 972, 975, 360 P.3d 418 (2015); Dickey, 301 Kan. at 1032. Consequently, we find that the issue presented by Dawson in this appeal is properly before us because it involves the classification of his prior convictions and the resulting criminal history score used by the district court to sentence him under the KSGA.

Section 22-3504 permits a motion to correct a sentence when misclassification of a prior offense produces an incorrect criminal history score and an unauthorized term of punishment.

State v. Montes · filed 2016-05-20(1)

Thus, Montes' claim falls squarely within the scope of relief afforded by the legislature under K.S.A. 22-3504 and his motion to correct an illegal sentence is properly before the court as a challenge to a "sentence that does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or the term of authorized punishment."

Section 22-3504(1) permits a defendant to challenge the classification of prior convictions used in a criminal history score even without an objection at sentencing.

State v. Burriss · filed 2016-06-17(1)

A court may correct an illegal sentence at any time, and a defendant may challenge the classification of prior convictions for the purposes of determining his or her criminal history score even if the defendant did not object at sentencing.

Section 22-3504 permits a defendant to challenge a criminal-history score as an illegal sentence because an incorrect score makes the sentence fail to conform to the sentencing statutes.

State v. Moore · filed 2016-06-24

Defendants can use K.S.A. 22-3504 to challenge their criminal-history scores because such a challenge meets the second definition of an illegal sentence: it's a claim that a sentence doesn't conform to the applicable statutory provision.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge the classification of prior convictions in a criminal history score.

State v. Villa · filed 2016-08-26(1)

We see no indication the Supreme Court is departing from its position and find that Villa's motion to correct illegal sentence was an appropriate means of advancing his claim concerning the classification of his prior convictions.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a motion to correct an illegal sentence when a prior conviction was wrongly classified in calculating the defendant’s criminal history score.

State v. Silvers · filed 2016-07-08(1)

Therefore, Silvers' challenge to the classification of his prior burglary conviction for criminal history purposes is properly before this court on a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a motion to correct an illegal sentence when an incorrect criminal history score makes the sentence fail to conform to the statutory provision.

State v. Merrills · filed 2016-09-09(1)

Accordingly, the sentence did not "conform to the statutory provision" and was illegal. See K.S.A. 22-3504(1); Martin, 52 Kan. App. 2d at 483. As a result, a motion to correct an illegal sentence was the appropriate remedy for Merrills to pursue.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a motion to correct an illegal sentence when an incorrectly classified prior adjudication inflates the defendant’s criminal history score.

State v. Gales · filed 2016-09-30(1)

Instead, he claims the district court's constitutional error was in calculating his criminal history score, which resulted in an illegal sentence. ... Gale's claim is within the scope of relief afforded by K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a prior conviction’s classification in the defendant’s criminal history.

State v. Barnes · filed 2016-09-30(1)

We see no indication the Supreme Court is departing from its position and find that Barnes' motion to correct an illegal sentence was an appropriate means of advancing his claim concerning the classification of his prior conviction.

Section 22-3504 treats a sentence based on an improperly classified prior conviction as illegal when the resulting criminal history score does not conform to the applicable sentencing statute, and permits resentencing to correct it.

State v. Murphy · filed 2017-05-12

Thus, the district court's classification of his prior Kentucky misdemeanors as class A offenses did not conform to the Kansas criminal history classification statute that was in effect when he committed his current crimes, which necessarily renders his sentence is illegal. Moncla, 301 Kan. at 551 (A sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504 if it "'does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or the term of authorized punishment.'"). Because it is illegal, we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing so the district court can reclassify Murphy's prior Kentucky offenses as nonperson unclassified misdemeanors, which necessarily will eliminate them from consideration in calculating his criminal history score.

Section 22-3504 permits a challenge to a criminal history score for the first time on appeal as an illegal-sentence claim, but does not permit a collateral attack on a conviction.

State v. Pollman · filed 2019-05-10

A challenge to a defendant's criminal history score may be raised for the first time on appeal under K.S.A. 22-3504 as a challenge to the legality of the sentence but not to collaterally attack a conviction.

Section 22-3504 does not permit the State to correct a sentence by adding newly discovered convictions when it failed to contest the factual basis of the criminal history used at sentencing.

State v. Schulze · filed 2019-07-26

Based on Dickey and Weber, the State cannot now challenge the factual basis for Schulze's criminal history score because it failed to object to it before the district court.

Section 22-3504 permits a defendant to challenge how prior convictions were classified and counted for a criminal history score even without an objection at sentencing.

State v. Magallanez · filed 2020-09-25(a)

But Magallanez' failure to do so does not prevent him from raising a subsequent challenge under K.S.A. 22-3504 regarding the legal effect of his prior convictions and how those convictions should be classified and counted for purposes of determining his criminal history score.

Section 22-3504(1) allows a legal challenge to the classification of a prior conviction for criminal history scoring to be raised for the first time on appeal despite no objection at sentencing.

State v. Anderson · filed 2020-10-30(1)

Our Supreme Court then held that legal challenges to the classification of a prior adjudication can be raised for the first time on appeal because the language of K.S.A. 22-3504(1) "specifically authorizes a court to 'correct an illegal sentence at any time.'" 301 Kan. at 1034. Anderson is correct that he can raise such a challenge for the first time on appeal, despite failing to object during sentencing.

A sentencing court’s failure to state the criminal history score expressly does not make the sentence illegal under § 22-3504 when the record shows it used the score reflected in the PSI and imposed a sentence within the applicable range.

State v. Crossman · filed 2021-01-29(c)(1)

Based on our review of the record, we find that Crossman has not shown that his sentence is illegal for any of the statutory reasons. ... Even if the district court's failure to explicitly state Crossman's criminal history score on the record were deemed to be error, it was harmless in this case because a review of the PSI and the transcript of the sentencing hearing reveal that district court—as well as the parties—operated under the premise that Crossman's criminal history score was E in determining the appropriate sentence.

A sentence drawn from the wrong sentencing grid block is presumptively illegal even if its length falls within the correct block’s range.

State v. Lamia-Beck · filed 2024-06-14(c)(1)

An "illegal sentence" is one that is "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." K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1). ... Thus, under the Revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, K.S.A. 21-6801 et seq., when a sentence is drawn from an incorrect sentencing grid block, it is presumptively illegal.

A sentence drawn from the wrong sentencing grid box is illegal and must be vacated for resentencing.

State v. Siroky · filed 2025-05-09(c)(1)

Because the district court drew Siroky's sentence from the wrong grid box, his sentence is illegal. Thus, we vacate Siroky's sentence and remand for resentencing.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a defendant to challenge the legal classification of a prior conviction in the criminal history score despite a stipulation or failure to object below.

State v. Gollahon · filed 2026-01-30(1)

Even so, Gollahon correctly contends that we may consider the issue for the first time on appeal. State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018, Syl. ¶ 3, 350 P.3d 1054 (2015) (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 K.S.A. 22-3504[1] of his or her prior convictions).

A sentence based on a misclassified prior conviction is illegal and can be corrected at any time.

State v. Chappell · filed 2022-04-15(a)

If there has been a misclassification of a prior conviction in a defendant's criminal history, the resulting sentence is illegal and can be corrected at any time pursuant to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(a).

Section 22-3504(a) does not govern remand when a defendant first challenges criminal history on appeal; section 21-6814(d) does.

State v. Bosley · filed 2026-01-09(a)

However, when a defendant challenges his criminal history for the first time on appeal, "the legal standard for remand is governed by K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 21-6814(d), rather than K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22-3504(a)."

Section 22-3504(1) allows a motion to correct an illegal sentence when a constitutional challenge shows that an incorrect criminal history score made the sentence illegal.

State v. Tracy · filed 2016-07-22(1)

Thus, despite the Kansas Supreme Court's recitation in Warrior of the general rule that a motion to correct illegal sentence cannot be based on a constitutional claim, our Supreme Court previously recognized in Neal that an exception to this rule exists if the constitutional claim affects the defendant's criminal history score and creates an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1).

Section 22-3504(1) allows a court to correct an illegal sentence at any time, including when a defendant first challenges the classification of a prior conviction on appeal.

State v. Wheeler · filed 2016-01-22(1)

But K.S.A. 22-3504(1) states that "the court may correct an illegal sentence at any time." Our Supreme Court has found that under K.S.A. 22-3401(1), a defendant may challenge the classification of his or her prior convictions for the first time on appeal.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a defendant to challenge the legal classification of prior convictions despite stipulating to or failing to object to the criminal history score at sentencing.

State v. Sanders · filed 2016-09-02(1)

At the outset, Sanders acknowledges she did not object to her criminal history score, nor did she raise this issue in the district court. Nevertheless, "a stipulation or lack of an objection regarding how [prior] 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 K.S.A. 22-3504(1)," which authorizes a court to "correct an illegal sentence at any time."

Section 22-3504 permits an appellate court to correct an illegal sentence on its own initiative and remand for resentencing even when neither party claims the sentence is illegal.

State v. Jackson · filed 2013-04-12

But neither party argues that Jackson’s 310-month sentences are illegal. ... Accordingly, we vacate Jackson’s departure sentence as illegal and remand for resentencing.

Section 22-3504(1) allows a district court to clarify an ambiguous sentence on its own initiative or when a party raises the ambiguity.

State v. McCroy · filed 2017-06-23(1)

Accordingly, K.S.A. 22-3504(1) provides a mechanism for a district court to eliminate a sentencing ambiguity on its own or for a party to flag what appears to be an ambiguity.

Section 22-3504 permits an appellate court to correct an illegal sentence on its own initiative.

State v. Rodgers · filed 2019-02-22

We may correct an illegal sentence sua sponte.

Section 22-3504(b) permits correction of a sentencing journal entry by nunc pro tunc order when the entry differs from the sentence pronounced in court.

State v. White · filed 2021-08-06(b)

The district court correctly pronounced the sentence but incorrectly entered the journal entry requiring lifetime postrelease supervision. We thus remand for the district court to correct the sentencing journal entry through a nunc pro tunc order. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(b); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99-100, 298 P.3d 333 (2013).

Section 22-3504(2) permits a court to correct a journal entry that differs from the sentence pronounced in open court.

State v. Rolls · filed 2019-11-22(2)

The journal entry provides a record of the sentence imposed; thus, "where the sentence announced from the bench differs from the sentence later described in the journal entry, the orally pronounced sentence controls" and the journal entry must be corrected to reflect the actual sentence imposed. 284 Kan. at 303-04; see K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(2). ... Although the controlling sentence in 14 CR 129 is not illegal, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the journal entry of judgment.

Section 22-3504(2) permits correction of a sentencing journal entry that includes a fee the court did not impose at sentencing.

State v. Peeples · filed 2020-01-10(2)

The State acknowledges the KBI lab fee was not ordered at the time of sentencing and was just added to the journal entry. It further acknowledges if this was error it can be corrected by a nunc pro tunc journal entry. We agree. Since there is no indication any KBI lab testing was done in 17CR107, we remand to the district court with instructions to file an amended journal entry of sentencing without assessing the KBI lab fee. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(2); State v. Tafoya, 304 Kan. 663, 666-67, 372 P.3d 1247 (2016) (journal entry indicating sentence different from the one pronounced from the bench is erroneous and must be corrected to reflect the actual sentence imposed).

Section 22-3504(1) permits correction of an illegal sentence recorded in a journal entry by vacating the entry and ordering a nunc pro tunc entry that conforms to the sentence announced in court.

State v. Breeden · filed 2013-06-14(1)

Because the journal entry in this case inaccurately reflected the announced sentence and recorded an illegal sentence, we vacate the journal entry and remand with directions to enter a nunc pro tunc order that conforms the journal entry to the announced sentence.

A sentence pronounced in open court that conforms to the sentencing guidelines is not illegal under § 22-3504(1) merely because the court later denies a dispositional departure motion by journal entry.

State v. Stanford · filed 2017-04-28(1)

In this case, the sentence pronounced from the bench conformed to the sentencing guidelines and, as such, was a legal sentence. ... Thus, even if the procedure the district court followed to deny the motion for dispositional departure was inappropriate, any error would be harmless because Stanford's sentence was pronounced in open court.

Section 22-3504(3) treats an orally pronounced sentence that designates the wrong primary crime as illegal, even when the written journal entry designates the correct crime.

State v. Comstock · filed 2019-03-29(3)

Because the erroneous oral pronouncement trumps the correct written journal entry, the oral pronouncement of the incorrect count as the primary crime created an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(2) allows a nunc pro tunc order to correct a clerical error or an error arising from oversight or omission, but not to impose a new postrelease supervision term.

State v. Ortiz · filed 2017-10-13(2)

The procedure employed by the district court in an effort to modify Ortiz' sentence without the defendant's presence in court by filing a nunc pro tunc order was improper. In Potts, our Supreme Court cited State v. Vanwey, 262 Kan. 524, Syl. ¶ 2, 941 P.2d 365 (1997) for the proposition: "'A nunc pro tunc order under K.S.A. 22-3504(2) may only be used to correct actual clerical errors or errors arising from oversight or omission.'" Potts, 304 Kan. at 709. In Ortiz' case, there is no evidence to support a clerical error or oversight in the district court's journal entry memorializing that Ortiz would not serve a postrelease supervision sentence.

Section 22-3504(2) permits a nunc pro tunc order to correct a journal entry so it reflects the legal sentence pronounced from the bench.

State v. Sanders · filed 2017-11-22(2)

This error can be corrected by a nunc pro tunc order so that the journal entry of judgment reflects the actual sentence pronounced from the bench, which was a legal sentence. See K.S.A. 22-3504(2). We affirm the sentence imposed from the bench, but because the journal entry erroneously listed Sanders' term of imprisonment as 16 months' imprisonment rather than the orally pronounced 15 months' imprisonment, we remand this case with directions to the district court to issue a nunc pro tunc journal entry of judgment to correct that portion of the sentence.

Section 22-3504(2) permits correction of clerical mistakes, but does not reach a substantive probation condition imposed by the court.

State v. Hunter · filed 2017-12-08(2)

This omission proves important because K.S.A. 22-3504(2) expressly applies to a "clerical" mistake. ... Here, the district court's special probation condition—that Hunter obtain a domestic violence assessment—clearly amounts to more than a clerical mistake in the district court's probation order.

Section 22-3504(2) does not permit a nunc pro tunc restitution increase when the omission resulted from the State’s failure to request restitution at sentencing rather than a clerical mistake or simple error of oversight or omission.

State v. Kammerer · filed 2017-06-09(2)

We only discuss the State's argument to acknowledge that K.S.A. 22-3504(2) is not the proper avenue for modification of Kammerer's sentence as this was not an issue of a clerical mistake or simple error of oversight or omission. The State specifically requested restitution on behalf of two victims at the original sentencing hearing. The only error of oversight or omission was on behalf of the State failing to specifically request restitution for Schicke at that hearing.

Section 22-3504(2) does not permit a nunc pro tunc order to change a journal entry that reflects the sentence pronounced from the bench.

State v. Potts · filed 2016-06-24(2)

It appears that the journal entry of judgment reflects, in part, the sentence that the district court pronounced from the bench at sentencing; thus it cannot be corrected by a nunc pro tunc order.

Section 22-3504(2) permits a nunc pro tunc order to correct a sentencing journal entry when the error resulted from oversight.

State v. Hood · filed 2016-02-05(2)

Because the error in the journal entry resulted from an oversight, the State was correct in filing a motion for a nunc pro tunc order rather than a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(2) permits correction of a sentencing journal entry by nunc pro tunc order when it differs from the sentence pronounced in court.

State v. Redburn · filed 2016-02-26(2)

The journal entry of sentencing can be corrected by a nunc pro tunc order. See K.S.A. 22-3504(2); Mason, 294 Kan. at 677.

Section 22-3504(2) permits correction of clerical errors or omissions in a sentence record, but does not permit a nunc pro tunc order changing a sentence that the journal entry correctly recorded.

State v. Vanwey · filed 1997-05-30(2)

The record clearly shows the nunc pro tunc order did not correct any omission or clerical error. What the order actually did was change a statutorily directed consecutive sentence properly entered into a concurrent sentence without any basis or justification. The record reflects the sentence entered by the court in May 1992 was correctly memorialized in the journal entry. Under the facts of this case, there was nothing the trial court could correct pursuant to 22-3504(2).

Section 22-3504(2) permits correction by nunc pro tunc order when a sentencing journal entry omits how mandatory consecutive sentences run.

Love v. State · filed 2005-12-09(2)

However, the trial court did not complete the section of the journal entiy regarding how the sentences in 97CR878 would run in relation to 90CR1448. The proper remedy was to correct the journal entry with a nunc pro tunc order.

Section 22-3504(2) permits correction of an oversight in a judgment by nunc pro tunc order when the change does not alter the sentence, without requiring the defendant to be present.

State v. Ross · filed 2012-12-07(2)

Because notiiing in the record suggests that the victim was under the age of 18, we remand to the district court with instructions that it issue a nunc pro tunc order deleting the provision that Ross must register under KORA pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4902(a)(4)(A). Because Ross is still required to register under KORA pursuant to K.S.A 22-4902(a)(2), this change will merely correct a mistake arising from an oversight and not change Ross’ sentence. Accordingly, he does not need to be present in court for the change to go into effect.

Section 22-3504(2) permits a nunc pro tunc correction of a sentencing journal entry to reflect the legal sentence pronounced from the bench.

State v. Mason · filed 2012-07-06(2)

The journal entry of sentencing can be corrected by a nunc pro tunc order so that it reflects the actual sentence pronounced from the bench, which was a legal sentence. See K.S.A. 22-3504(2).

Section 22-3504(1) permits correction of a journal entry by nunc pro tunc order to conform it to the sentence pronounced from the bench.

State v. Brown · filed 2012-08-24(1)

As the State points out, the error lies with the journal entry, not the announced sentence. ... Therefore, we vacate the journal entry and remand with directions to enter a nunc pro tunc order that conforms the journal entiy to the announced sentence.

Section 22-3504(2) permits a nunc pro tunc order correcting a sentencing journal entry to reflect the sentence actually pronounced.

State v. Beaman · filed 2012-10-19(2)

We remand the case to the district court to issue a nunc pro tunc order under K.S.A. 22-3504(2) correcting the sentencing journal entry error so it reflects the actual sentence pronounced.

Section 22-3504(2) permits a nunc pro tunc correction of a judgment journal entry that incorrectly states the conviction’s severity level.

State v. Quartez Brown · filed 2014-08-15(2)

Quartez points out that the journal entry of judgment incorrectly describes Quartez' second-degree murder conviction as an "off-grid" severity level crime, when that crime is actually a severity level 1, person felony. K.S.A. 21-3402. The State concedes the error. Accordingly, we remand for a nunc pro tunc correction. See K.S.A. 22-3504(2).

Section 22-3504(2) permits a court to correct a clerical mistake in a judgment at any time through a nunc pro tunc order.

State v. Sellers · filed 2015-12-18(2)

K.S.A. 22-3504(2) states that "[c]lerical mistakes in judgments . . . may be corrected by the court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders." Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court with directions to issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting this clerical mistake.

Section 22-3504(2) permits correction of clerical mistakes at any time and gives the district court jurisdiction to decide whether a possible jail-credit calculation mistake requires correction.

State v. Floyd · filed 2016-12-09(2)

The statute that governs correction of a sentence—K.S.A. 22-3504—provides at subsection (2) that clerical corrections and mistakes can be corrected at any time. ... Accordingly, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504(2) we find that the district court has jurisdiction to decide the issue presented in Floyd's motion on the merits.

Subsection (2) does not authorize a nunc pro tunc correction of a deliberate jail-credit decision as a clerical error, oversight, or omission.

State v. Porrata · filed 2017-03-17(2)

The issue here is not one of clerical error, oversight, or omission. To the contrary, Porrata's complaint concerns a decision on jail credit that clearly was made purposely.

Section 22-3504(2) permits a court to correct at any time a clerical entry that causes collection under a restitution order that does not exist.

State v. Bailey · filed 2017-05-19(2)

This entry mistake likely constitutes a clerical error that may be corrected at any time.

Section 22-3504(2) permits a court to correct at any time an error in the sentencing record arising from oversight or omission.

State v. Gulick · filed 2017-09-22(2)

We consider this to be an error in the record arising from oversight or omission that may be corrected by the court at any time pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504(2). Accordingly, we vacate Gulick's controlling sentence of 87 months' imprisonment and remand with directions to correct the journal entries to reflect that Gulick's sentences in all five cases shall run concurrent for a modified controlling sentence of 83 months' imprisonment.

Section 22-3504(2) permits a court to correct clerical errors in a criminal judgment by nunc pro tunc order at any time.

State v. Moore · filed 2017-11-03(2)

For the reasons stated above, we affirm Moore's convictions but remand the matter with directions for the district court to enter a nunc pro tunc journal entry of judgment to correct clerical errors in the journal entry related to counts 2 and 4. A journal entry of judgment may be corrected "at any time" by a nunc pro tunc order. See K.S.A. 22- 3504(2).

Section 22-3504(b) authorizes a court to correct a clerical error at any time but does not authorize relief beyond correcting the clerical order.

State v. Bailey · filed 2021-07-30(b)

K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(b), previously K.S.A. 22-3504(2), supplies the authority for a district court to correct any clerical error at any time. ... But K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(b) does not authorize a court to do anything more than correct the clerical order.

Section 22-3504 permits a nunc pro tunc order to correct clerical errors, but an illegal postrelease supervision term pronounced at sentencing requires resentencing in court.

State v. Obiero · filed 2022-01-28(b)

The agreed-upon procedure employed by the district court to modify Obiero's postrelease supervision sentence by filing a corrective nunc pro tunc order without resentencing the defendant in court was error. In Potts, our Supreme Court quoted State v. Vanwey, 262 Kan. 524, Syl. ¶ 2, 941 P.2d 365 (1997), for the proposition: "'A nunc pro tunc order under K.S.A. 22-3504(2) may only be used to correct actual clerical errors or errors arising from oversight or omission.'" Potts, 304 Kan. at 709. Here, the illegal postrelease supervision period announced at sentencing was an illegal sentence that could not be cured or corrected by the filing of an appropriate journal entry.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a nunc pro tunc journal entry to correct an illegal sentence pronounced in court; correction requires resentencing in court.

State v. Obiero · filed 2022-04-22(2)

The agreed-upon procedure employed by the district court to modify Obiero's postrelease supervision sentence by filing a corrective nunc pro tunc order without resentencing the defendant in court was error. In Potts, our Supreme Court quoted State v. Vanwey, 262 Kan. 524, Syl. ¶ 2, 941 P.2d 365 (1997), for the proposition: "'A nunc pro tunc order under K.S.A. 22-3504(2) may only be used to correct actual clerical errors or errors arising from oversight or omission.'" Potts, 304 Kan. at 709. Here, the illegal postrelease supervision period announced at sentencing was an illegal sentence that could not be cured or corrected by the filing of an appropriate journal entry.

Section 22-3504(b) allows a sentencing court to correct arithmetic or clerical errors after it otherwise loses jurisdiction to modify a sentence.

State v. Robinson · filed 2024-07-26(b)

We see no error in the district court's decision. A sentencing court loses subject matter jurisdiction to modify a sentence except to correct arithmetic or clerical errors. K.S.A. 22-3504(b); State v. Lamia-Beck, 318 Kan. __, 549 P.3d 1103, 1105 (2024); State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978, 983, 319 P.3d 506 (2014).

Section 22-3504(b) permits a nunc pro tunc order to correct a sentencing journal entry that omits jail credit awarded at sentencing.

State v. Peters · filed 2024-09-20(b)

This discrepancy in the journal entry is a simple clerical error which can be addressed by a nunc pro tunc order correcting the portion of the journal entry to include Peters' jail credit award. See K.S.A. 22-3504(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.").