Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3504

Whether a sentence is illegal under § 22-3504 is a question of law subject to unlimited appellate review.

State v. Dayvault · filed 2024-05-10

Whether a sentence is illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 22-3504 is a question of law over which we have unlimited review.

Whether a sentence is illegal under § 22-3504 is a question of law subject to unlimited appellate review.

State v. Dawson · filed 2019-05-03

Whether a sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 constitutes a question of law over which we have unlimited review.

Whether a sentence is illegal under § 22-3504 is a question of law subject to unlimited appellate review.

State v. Manning · filed 2019-05-24

Whether a sentence is illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 is a question of law over which we exercise unlimited review.

Whether a sentence is illegal under § 22-3504 is a question of law subject to unlimited appellate review.

State v. Robinson · filed 2020-07-31

Whether a sentence is illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22- 3504 is a question of law over which the appellate court has unlimited review.

Whether a sentence is illegal under section 22-3504(c)(1) is a question of law subject to unlimited appellate review.

State v. Baska · filed 2020-07-31(c)(1)

Whether a sentence is illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) is a question of law over which appellate courts exercise unlimited review.

Whether a sentence is illegal under § 22-3504 is a question of law subject to unlimited appellate review.

State v. Parks · filed 2020-12-04

Whether a sentence is illegal within the meaning of the statute is a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review.

Whether a criminal sentence is illegal under § 22-3504 is a question of law subject to unlimited review.

State v. Hayes · filed 2021-11-19

Whether a criminal sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 is a question of law over which our review is unlimited.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence as illegal when its pronouncement leaves ambiguous whether it runs concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.

State v. Fuller · filed 2022-01-14(c)(1)

We are persuaded that the 2018 Finney County case modified sentence is violative of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) because the district court's silence is ambiguous regarding whether the sentence must be served concurrent with or consecutive to the 2017 Ford County case.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats continued probation as an illegal sentence when the absence of a timely extension order leaves its duration ambiguous.

State v. Rakestraw · filed 2021-12-10(c)(1)

An illegal sentence as defined by K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) is "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." ... Without a timely order extending Rakestraw's probation, the terms of his probation are ambiguous as to the time and manner he is supposed to serve. Therefore, Rakestraw is serving an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) covers a sentence whose time of service is ambiguous because the court failed to pronounce the required good time reduction.

State v. Bott · filed 2020-06-26(c)(1)

In addition, for failing to comply with the statutory requirements, the failure to pronounce the good time credit rendered the sentence ambiguous with respect to the time of service.

A sentence is not illegal under § 22-3504 merely because it runs consecutive to a sentence in another case that is alleged to be illegal, where the challenged sentence was imposed with jurisdiction, conforms to applicable statutes, and is unambiguous.

State v. Jordan · filed 2017-09-08(1)

Here, we find that Saline County had jurisdiction to sentence Jordan as it did. Likewise, the sentence rendered in Saline County conformed to the applicable statutory provisions. Furthermore, the sentence rendered in Saline County is not ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which Jordan is to serve it. Accordingly, we find nothing illegal about the sentence rendered in Saline County, and the issue of whether the Jackson County sentence is illegal is not before us in this appeal.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of a sentence ambiguous as to the time and manner of service, but a journal entry that clearly specifies how jail credit is applied is not ambiguous on that ground.

State v. Harper · filed 2003-05-30(1)

“Motions to correct an illegal sentence are governed by K.S.A. 22-3504. ... The court may correct an illegal sentence at anytime. K.S.A. 22-3504(1); ...” ... “An ‘illegal sentence’ is either a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction; a sentence which does not conform to the statutoiy provisions, either in the character or the term of the punishment authorized; or a sentence which is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served.” Jones, 272 Kan. 674, Syl. ¶ 1. ... The sentencing journal entry of judgment clearly indicates “[j]ail time credit shall first be applied to misdemeanor sentences on Counts 7 and 8.” Under the facts presented on appeal, there is no confusion or ambiguity with respect to the time and manner in which Harper is to serve his sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit correction of procedural sentencing errors when the sentence is authorized by statute and unambiguous as to the time and manner of service.

State v. PEIRANO · filed 2009-10-09(1)

In the present case, Peirano challenges the procedures that the district court followed in applying K.S.A. 21-4635 to his sentence. The sentence itself was authorized by a valid statute, both as to its character and its term, and the sentence was not ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it was to be served. The sentence was therefore not illegal under the limited terms of K.S.A. 22-3504, and no reversible error has occurred.

Section 22-3504(1) does not treat a sentence as illegal merely because the sentencing journal entry cites an inapplicable statute, so long as the sentence pronounced from the bench conforms to the governing statutes and is unambiguous.

State v. Hambright · filed 2017-01-13(1)

In this case, the sentence pronounced from the bench contained no reference to K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6608(c)(5), although the court did use the language of the statute in its rationale that the 24-month term was not in the best interest of Hambright's welfare or the public welfare. As long as the sentence pronounced from the bench conformed to the statutes and was not ambiguous, it was a legal sentence.

A sentence is not illegal under § 22-3504(1) if it conforms to the applicable statutory punishment, was imposed by a court with jurisdiction, and is unambiguous about when and how it is served.

State v. Allison · filed 2017-04-07(1)

Allison's sentence conforms to the applicable statutory provision in both character and term of authorized punishment. See Dickey, 301 Kan. at 1034. It was imposed by a court with jurisdiction and was not ambiguous with respect to time or manner in which it is to be served. 301 Kan. at 1034. Allison's sentence is not illegal.

Section 22-3504 treats an order making a sentence consecutive to a sentence not yet imposed as illegal because the manner in which it is to be served is ambiguous.

State v. Jones · filed 2017-03-03

Based on the decisions in Pride and Reed, we agree with Jones that the order for consecutive sentencing in 98CR1956 is technically illegal because a district court is not permitted to order a sentence in one case to be served consecutive to a sentence in another case that has not yet been imposed. As a result, the order for consecutive sentencing in 98CR1956 is ambiguous with regard to the manner in which it is to be served.

An order to serve the balance of an original sentence is not ambiguous under § 22-3504(1) merely because it does not restate the previously imposed postrelease supervision term.

State v. Combs · filed 2017-04-07(1)

Under K.S.A. 22-3504(1), an illegal sentence includes a sentence that is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it shall be served. ... When the trial court ordered Combs to serve the balance of his sentence, the trial court clearly meant that Combs was to serve the balance of his original sentence, which included his term of lifetime postrelease supervision.

Section 22-3504(3) treats a sentence as illegal for ambiguity about the time and manner of service when pronounced; clearly stated imprisonment and supervision terms are not illegal on that ground.

State v. Martinez · filed 2018-08-24(3)

An illegal sentence is defined as a sentence "[i]mposed 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. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3); see State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549, 551, 343 P.3d 1161 (2015). ... The district court clearly ordered an imprisonment portion for each case, followed by a term of post-imprisonment supervision, with the sentences to be served consecutively. At the revocation hearing, the district court was clear that it was revoking Martinez' post-imprisonment supervision and imposing the remaining underlying sentence to be served in jail. Martinez' sentences are not illegal.

A sentence directing a Kansas term to run consecutive to any previously imposed sentence is not ambiguous under § 22-3504 because "any" encompasses all previously imposed sentences.

State v. Wiggins · filed 2019-02-15

Regardless of whether res judicata applies, Wiggins' appeal still fails because his sentence is legal. "A sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504 when: (1) it is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) it does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or punishment; or (3) it is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served. [Citation omitted.]" ... As a result, Wiggins' Kansas sentence is not ambiguous and runs consecutive to all his previously imposed sentences.

A restitution order is not an illegal sentence for ambiguity about the time and manner of payment merely because it lacks a payment plan or a stated due date; absent an immediate-payment directive, restitution becomes due on release from prison.

State v. Garza · filed 2019-03-29(3)

Garza next claims that, even if the district court was not statutorily required to establish a payment plan as part of its restitution order, its failure to do so is nevertheless illegal because, without a payment plan, the order is "'ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served.'" See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3). Specifically, Garza argues that without a payment plan, "it is unclear how and when [he] will pay his restitution amount of over $75,000." However, we find no support for Garza's argument in the factual record. First, as to the "how," when the district court entered its restitution order, it directed Garza to pay $75,564 to the Hutchinson Correctional Facility through the office of the clerk of the district court. Nothing about that order is ambiguous or unclear. Next, as to the "when," although the district court did not specify when the restitution would become due, it was not statutorily obligated to do so. See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6604(b). Instead, as noted above, because the district court did not clearly state that the restitution was due immediately (i.e., while Garza was still incarcerated), it will become due upon his release from prison. See Alderson, 299 Kan. 151.

Section 22-3504 treats a pronounced sentence as illegal when ambiguity about its terms leaves the time and manner of service uncertain, and the sentence may be vacated.

State v. Lozano · filed 2021-02-19(c)(1)

In that event, it is ambiguous whether the district court modified the sentence to vacate one of the misdemeanor sentences and, if so, which one. Given this ambiguity, Lozano has raised a meritorious claim that the district court imposed an illegal sentence. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504. The sentence imposed is ambiguous and it should, therefore, be vacated.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence as illegal when conflicting oral pronouncements leave its term of imprisonment ambiguous, requiring the sentence to be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

State v. Pierce · filed 2021-03-05(c)(1)

The material ambiguity is that after revoking Pierce's probation, the district court's conflicting oral statements do not make clear what sentence was ultimately imposed—whether it was for 36 or 46 months in length. ... And because the sentence imposed is illegal, it must be vacated and remanded for resentencing.

A sentence that clearly imposes months of confinement does not become an illegal ambiguous sentence under § 22-3504 merely because another state later releases the defendant onto probation.

State v. Sanders · filed 2020-04-17

We note that the journal entry in this case specified that the 180 months was to be served as "months of confinement." Thus, this sentence was clear and unambiguous. The simple fact that Georgia released Sanders onto probation did not transform his unambiguous sentence into an ambiguous one. Because no ambiguity existed in the sentence when it was imposed, the sentence is not illegal.

A sentence is not ambiguous as to when probation begins when the order makes probation start upon release from prison and requires prompt reporting after release, even if the exact release date can change.

State v. Goines · filed 2025-11-14(c)(1)

Given that the district court specified the probation would start when he is released from KDOC, and that Goines must report to his ISO within 24 hours of release, no reasonable interpretation of the trial court's order supports a finding of ambiguity.

Under § 22-3504(c)(1), fines are ambiguous when the amounts imposed in each case cannot be determined from the sentence pronounced from the bench.

State v. Abell · filed 2026-03-13(c)(1)

We agree the fines as imposed are ambiguous as announced from the bench. See K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1).

A sentencing court’s failure to specify whether felony sentences run concurrently with or consecutively to an earlier misdemeanor sentence does not make the felony sentences illegal for purposes of a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Turner · filed 2026-03-13(c)(1)

But Turner's felony sentences are not illegal because of the district court's failure to strictly comply with K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 21-4608(2), and the district court did not err in summarily denying Turner's motions to correct illegal sentences on this basis.

Section 22-3504(3) treats a sentence as illegal when it is ambiguous at pronouncement about when and how it will be served, including when the judge gives inconsistent parole and postrelease terms.

State v. Johnson · filed 2019-05-31(3)

A sentence is illegal when it is imposed by a court without jurisdiction, fails to "conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment," or "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. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(3). ... The judge's inconsistent statements on this point at sentencing made this aspect of Johnson's sentence ambiguous and illegal.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence as illegal if it is ambiguous when pronounced as to the time and manner in which it is to be served; the sentencing hearing’s context can clarify the pronounced sentence.

State v. McMillan · filed 2023-01-13(c)(1)

A sentence ambiguous as to the time and manner in which it is to be served when it is pronounced is illegal. K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1). ... We thus find that McMillan's sentence was not ambiguous as to the time and manner in which it was to be served when it was pronounced.

A time-barred initial charge does not make a sentence illegal under § 22-3504 on jurisdictional grounds because the statute of limitations does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.

State v. Gleason · filed 2022-03-18(c)(1)

Because the statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional bar, the complaint was never "void" and Gleason's sentence is not illegal under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504.

A sentencing court's failure to designate aggravating circumstances in writing does not make a sentence illegal under Section 22-3504.

State v. Bedford · filed 2022-01-14(c)(1)

We also deny Bedford's newly raised claim of an illegal sentence because his argument that the sentencing court failed to comply with the "in writing" requirements of K.S.A. 21-4635(c) (Furse 1995) (in effect at the time of sentencing but since repealed) does not give rise to a claim of illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) defines an illegal sentence to include one that does not conform to applicable statutory provisions; a sentence imposed under the correct legal standard is not illegal on that ground.

State v. Foster · filed 2021-07-23(c)(1)

A sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) when: a court imposes it without jurisdiction; the sentence does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or the term of punishment; or the court is ambiguous about the time and manner in which the defendant is to serve the sentence. ... The district court did not apply an erroneous legal standard, and therefore the sentence is not illegal and remains nonreviewable.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) defines an illegal sentence as one 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. Hill · filed 2021-08-13(c)(1)

An illegal sentence is one that is: imposed by a court without jurisdiction; does not conform to the statutory provision either in the character or the term of the authorized punishment; or is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) defines an illegal sentence as one imposed without jurisdiction, one that does not conform to the applicable statute, or one ambiguous about when or how it is served.

State v. Evans · filed 2021-10-15(c)(1)

A sentence is illegal sentence if it is imposed by a court without jurisdiction, it does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, or it is ambiguous concerning the time and manner it is to be served. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22- 3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) defines an illegal sentence as one imposed without jurisdiction, one that does not conform to applicable sentencing provisions, or one ambiguous about when and how it is served.

State v. Phillips · filed 2021-11-12(c)(1)

An illegal sentence is a sentence imposed by a court that lacks jurisdiction; a sentence that does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or the length of the punishment authorized; or a sentence that is ambiguous on the time and manner in which it is to be served. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) defines an illegal sentence by a lack of jurisdiction, nonconformity with applicable statutory provisions, or ambiguity about how or when it is served.

State v. Kelly · filed 2022-03-25(c)(1)

A sentence is illegal when: (1) it is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) it does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or the term of punishment; or (3) it is ambiguous about the time and manner in which it is to be served. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1); State v. Hambright, 310 Kan. 408, 411, 447 P.3d 972 (2019).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence that does not conform to applicable statutory provisions as illegal.

In re Z.T. · filed 2020-06-19(c)(1)

Illegal sentences include sentences that do not conform to the applicable statutory provisions. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1). ... As a result, that portion of Z.T.'s sentence was illegal and must be vacated as a matter of law.

Section 22-3504 does not treat a constitutional challenge to a sentence, by itself, as a claim that the sentence is illegal.

State v. Bull · filed 2020-05-08(c)(1)

But a claim that a sentence violates a constitutional provision does not make the sentence illegal within the meaning of the illegal-sentence statute, so Bull had only 14 days to appeal his sentence. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) (defining an illegal sentence as a sentence that is imposed without jurisdiction, is ambiguous, or doesn't conform to the relevant statute).

Section 22-3504(3) treats a sentence imposed by a court lacking jurisdiction as illegal; a sentence imposed by a court with jurisdiction is not illegal on that ground.

State v. Patton · filed 2019-11-01(3)

A sentence is illegal if it is ambiguous, fails to conform to the relevant statute, or was imposed by a court that lacks jurisdiction. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(3). ... Under these facts, the district court had jurisdiction; Patton's sentence is legal.

A sentencing delay does not make a sentence illegal under § 22-3504 when the defendant agreed to the timing and suffered no prejudice.

State v. Duque · filed 2018-12-07(1)

We, therefore, conclude that Duque was not prejudiced by the timing of his sentencing or by the procedure used by the district court. Consequently, Duque's sentence is not illegal and the district court did not err in summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(3) treats a sentence that does not conform to the applicable sentencing statute as illegal, including a sentence that denies parole eligibility when the statute allows parole after 25 years.

State v. Robinson · filed 2018-03-30(3)

K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3) defines "illegal sentence" as a sentence "[i]mposed 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." ... By sentencing Robinson to "25 years to life without possibility of parole," the district court failed to sentence Robinson to a term of imprisonment for life with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years, followed by the possibility of parole, as required by K.S.A 2017 Supp. 21-6627(a)(1).

A sentence for an offense of which the defendant was not convicted is illegal because the sentencing court lacks jurisdiction to impose it.

State v. Munoz · filed 2017-09-15(1)

We also agree, holding that because Munoz was not convicted of aggravated intimidation of a witness, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him for that crime.

Section 22-3504(1) does not provide illegal-sentence relief for errors concerning offender registration because registration is not part of the sentence.

State v. Davis · filed 2016-06-10(1)

Because offender registration was not part of Davis' sentence, his arguments relating to an illegal sentence and his right to be present at sentencing are without merit under these circumstances.

Section 22-3504 does not provide relief for an adjustment to probation terms because probation does not affect the sentence.

State v. Pemberton · filed 2004-02-20(1)

The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. See K.S.A. 22-3504(1). ... Probation is not the sentence and does not affect the sentence. ... Any subsequent adjustment to the terms of her probation did not affect her sentence. Pemberton’s argument alleging an illegal sentence is without merit.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit trial errors to support a motion to correct an illegal sentence because trial errors do not deprive the court of jurisdiction.

State v. Brown · filed 2006-02-03(1)

Because a trial error does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction, trial errors cannot be raised to support a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 cannot be used to correct trial errors that should have been raised on direct appeal.

State v. Barnes · filed 2007-01-19

Neither a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion nor a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 can be used as a substitute for a direct appeal involving mere trial errors.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a multiplicity claim to proceed as a claim that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction.

State v. Edwards · filed 2006-06-16(1)

We therefore conclude a claim that sentences are multiplicitous is not a claim that the sentences were imposed by a court without jurisdiction as is necessary to come within the narrow definition of illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1).

A sentence for an offense that overlaps with a less severely punished offense is not an illegal sentence under § 22-3504 merely because it violates the identical or overlapping offenses doctrine.

State v. Harp · filed 2007-04-27

Kansas case law has clearly established that a sentence imposed for a crime which has identical or overlapping elements with a crime of a less severe penalty and, thus, violates this court’s rulings on identical or overlapping offenses is not “illegal” as that term is used in K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of an illegal sentence but does not provide relief for a collateral attack on a conviction based on an oral amendment to the charging document.

State v. Davis · filed 2007-04-27(1)

Similarly, we conclude that relief is not available to Davis under K.S.A. 22-3504 based upon a prosecutor’s failure to memorialize in writing an oral amendment to a complaint or information or based upon a claim that the oral amendment prejudiced the defendant.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a constitutional challenge to the sentence.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2007-06-22(1)

Because the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that the sentence violates a constitutional provision, a defendant may not file a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on constitutional challenges to his or her sentence.

A denial of allocution does not make a sentence illegal under § 22-3504.

State v. Heath · filed 2008-03-28

Finally, this court has previously determined that a denial of allocution does not render an imposed sentence illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 22-3504. ... Heath’s argument that a failure of allocution renders his sentence illegal fails.

Section 22-3504(1) does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge a defective complaint when the challenge attacks the conviction rather than the sentence.

Deal v. State · filed 2008-06-27(1)

Most important, we reiterated in Hoge that a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not the appropriate vehicle by which to bring a claim that the complaint was defective.

Section 22-3504 cannot be used to challenge a conviction by disputing whether the criminal complaint was defective.

State v. Sims · filed 2012-07-20

This court has previously held that a motion to correct an illegal sentence is an inappropriate vehicle to dispute whether a complaint was defective because such a claim challenges the conviction, not the sentence.

A claim that sentences are multiplicitous does not establish that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction for purposes of correcting an illegal sentence under § 22-3504(1).

Trotter v. State · filed 2009-01-30(1)

Applying this reasoning, we held: “We therefore conclude a claim that sentences are ... multiplicitous is not a claim that the sentences were imposed by a court without jurisdiction as is necessary to come within the narrow definition of illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1).” 281 Kan. at 1341. ... The holding in Edwards controls this issue and requires us to reject Trotter s argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge a defective complaint, because that claim attacks the conviction rather than the sentence.

State v. Trotter · filed 2013-03-08

We reiterate what this court has made clear: Defective complaint claims are not properly raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504.

An offender registration duty imposed by operation of law is not part of a criminal sentence, so a later registration requirement does not make the original sentence illegal under § 22-3504(1).

State v. Simmons · filed 2014-06-27(1)

Because an offender s statutoiy duty to register is imposed automatically by operation of law, without court intervention, as a collateral consequence of judgment with a stated objective of protecting public safety and not punishment, we necessarily conclude that the registration requirements — no matter when imposed — are not part of an, offender’s sentence. As such, Simmons’ illegal sentence and ex post facto claims both fail.

Section 22-3504(1) does not treat a sentence that violates the identical offense sentencing doctrine as illegal, so an untimely motion on that ground gives the court no jurisdiction to modify the sentence.

State v. Kebert · filed 2015-09-18(1)

Thus, the district court never obtained jurisdiction to rule on Kebert's untimely motion because Kebert's sentence, which he alleges violates the identical offense sentencing doctrine, was not illegal.

A court’s failure to consider a defendant’s financial resources when setting the amount or method of payment of a fine does not make the sentence illegal under § 22-3504.

State v. Tafoya · filed 2016-06-17

Considering these authorities, we conclude that a sentence is not rendered illegal simply because the district court judge fails to consider (or fails to state on the record that he or she has considered) the financial resources of the defendant when determining either the discretionary amount of a fine or the discretionary method of payment.

A departure sentence is illegal under § 22-3504(1) if the sentencing court fails to state the substantial and compelling reasons required by § 21-6815(a).

State v. Shull · filed 2016-09-02(1)

If the district court failed to comply with K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6815(a), as Shull argues on appeal, then the district court improperly imposed an upward durational departure sentence and Shull received a sentence that does not conform to the statutory provision, either in character or the term of the punishment authorized, making his sentence illegal.

A sentencing judge’s later retirement does not make a sentence illegal under § 22-3504.

State v. Carroll · filed 2016-11-18

Additionally, whether Carroll's sentencing judge has since retired has no bearing on the legality of his sentence. See K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(1) does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on procedural defects in a competency examination that do not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.

State v. Williams-Salmeron · filed 2016-09-30(1)

Williams-Salmeron, therefore, cannot rely on a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge the criminal proceedings, since the motion must be predicated on a lack of jurisdiction.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not treat a sentence as illegal when it conforms to the applicable sentencing statute in character, punishment, and the time and manner of service.

State v. England · filed 2020-10-09(c)(1)

Accordingly, England's sentence for rape is not an illegal sentence as it "conform[s] to the applicable statutory provision . . . in character [and] punishment . . . [and] the time and manner in which it is to be served at the time it [was] pronounced." K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504(3) does not treat a court’s failure to follow section 22-3716’s graduated probation sanctions as an illegal sentence.

State v. McCroy · filed 2021-05-14(3)

While K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 vests appellate courts with jurisdiction to hear the State's appeal of an illegal sentence, we hold that a district court's noncompliance with K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716 does not fall within the scope of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504.

A sentence whose term does not conform to the applicable sentencing statutes is illegal under § 22-3504(c)(1), and an unauthorized enhancement requires resentencing.

Dulaney v. State · filed 2021-06-25(c)(1)

A sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) when: (1) it is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) it does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or the term of punishment; or (3) it is ambiguous about the time and manner in which it is to be served. ... The proper remedy, as acknowledged by the State, is to remand with instructions to resentence Dulaney without the six-month enhancement.

A sentence that omits the defendant’s maximum potential good-time reduction is illegal because it is ambiguous as to the time of service and must be corrected by resentencing.

State v. Hester · filed 2022-03-25(c)(1)

The sentencing court's failure to state a defendant's good time credit renders a sentence illegal because it is ambiguous with respect to the time of service.

A restitution order is part of a criminal sentence and may be challenged under subsection (c)(1) if it does not conform to applicable sentencing statutes.

State v. Pewenofkit · filed 2024-03-29(c)(1)

And because restitution is part of a criminal defendant's sentence, we have jurisdiction to consider whether Pewenofkit's restitution sentence conforms with the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or punishment, under K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) defines an illegal sentence as one that fails to conform to applicable statutory provisions; challenges to the evidence supporting a plea and claims of prosecutorial error do not assert an illegal sentence.

State v. Novak · filed 2024-06-28(c)(1)

We note a defendant may argue to correct an illegal sentence at any time under K.S.A. 22-3504. However, K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1) defines an illegal sentence as one that does not conform to applicable statutory provisions. Novak's claims that the proffer of evidence did not satisfy the elements of the offense and of prosecutorial error do not assert any illegal sentence arguments.

Section 22-3504 may provide a state-court procedure for a defendant serving a sentence to argue that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction.

Shields (ID 107518) v. Zmuda · filed 2022-08-02(a), (c)

Nonetheless, it appears that K.S.A. 22-3504 may provide a procedural avenue for Petitioner to bring his jurisdictional argument in the state court, so that argument is not subject to an anticipatory procedural bar and is unexhausted.

Section 22-3504 may provide a state court procedure to correct a sentence imposed without jurisdiction while the defendant is serving it.

Shields (ID 107518) v. Zmuda · filed 2022-08-29

Kansas courts are authorized by K.S.A. 22-3504(a) to “correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence,” and subsection (c) of the same statute defines “illegal sentence” to include “a sentence[ i]mposed by a court without jurisdiction.” Because the basis for the jurisdictional argument is unclear, the M&O offered no opinion on the potential for success in the state court. Nonetheless, it appears that K.S.A. 22-3504 may provide a procedural avenue for Petitioner to bring his jurisdictional argument in the state court, so that argument is not subject to an anticipatory procedural bar and is unexhausted.

Section 22-3504 does not provide relief for an identical offense doctrine challenge when the sentence otherwise conforms to the governing statute and is unambiguous.

State v. Overman · filed 2024-03-22(c)(1)

Therefore, even if the sentences violate the identical offense doctrine, there can be no relief under K.S.A. 22-3504 because the sentences are not "illegal" under the statute's definition of that word.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) defines an illegal sentence to include one that does not conform to applicable statutory provisions, including a sentence based on an incorrectly classified prior conviction.

State v. McKimmy · filed 2024-09-06(c)(1)

An illegal sentence is defined as a sentence that (1) is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or punishment; or (3) is ambiguous about the time and manner in which it is to be served. K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1); see Mitchell, 315 Kan. at 158. McKimmy's appeal concerns whether his sentence conforms to the applicable statutory provisions.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction as an illegal sentence if the jurisdictional claim is correct.

Bradford v. State · filed 2024-11-01(c)(1)

A claim that a sentence is imposed by a court without jurisdiction, if found to be correct, satisfies the definition of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not treat a claim that a sentence violates a constitutional provision as an illegal-sentence claim.

State v. Seck · filed 2024-11-08(c)(1)

And we observe that the definition of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1) does not include a claim that the sentence violates a constitutional provision. State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217, 220, 380 P.3d 230 (2016). Thus, Seck cannot assert that if his claim is correct, he is serving an illegal sentence that the court may correct at any time while he is serving the sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(a).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) defines an illegal sentence as one imposed without jurisdiction, one that does not conform to applicable statutory provisions in character or punishment term, or one ambiguous about when and how it is to be served.

State v. McQuilliams · filed 2025-03-14(c)(1)

But McQuilliams has not shown how his sentence was illegal. An illegal sentence is defined as a sentence that (1) is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or the term of punishment; or (3) 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). As the State notes, McQuilliams did not address how his claim meets the statutory definition of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1). Nor does he make a constitutional challenge to the sentencing scheme. As such, McQuilliams failed to properly argue that his sentence was illegal.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not permit evaluation of an allegedly ambiguous sentence when no sentence was pronounced; the court must remand for pronouncement.

State v. Bobian · filed 2025-08-22(c)(1)

In contrast, the district court here only rejected the defense's request that it impose the hard 25; it did not actually go on to pronounce the hard 50. Whatever the district court meant to do, we cannot evaluate the meaning of a sentence if there was no sentence. We thus remand the matter to the district court to pronounce a sentence for Bobian's premeditated first-degree murder conviction.

Section 22-3504 does not treat a sentence for an offense with elements identical to a lesser-penalty offense as an illegal sentence.

State v. Lipp · filed 2026-01-02(c)(1)

Yet, as the State points out, even if we assumed that Lipp was correct and the offenses are identical, identical offenses do not equate to an illegal sentence under the statute.

Section 22-3504 does not treat a court’s failure to consider the sentencing factors in K.S.A. 21-4606 as an illegal sentence.

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

And we have held that a court's failure "'to comply with the statutory provision requiring the court to consider the factors listed in K.S.A. 21-4606'" does not fall within the illegal- sentence statute's definition. State v. Rojas, 280 Kan. 931, 933, 127 P.3d 247 (2006).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) limits an illegal-sentence claim based on nonconformity with a statute to provisions related to the charged crime and punishment; violation of just any statute does not qualify.

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

But this provision does not extend the definition of an illegal sentence to violation of any statute—it only applies to statutes related to the charged crime and punishment.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence outside the presumptive sentencing range as illegal when the district court has not granted a departure.

State v. Walker · filed 2026-06-12(c)(1)

We find that the 124-month sentence pronounced from the bench is the controlling sentence in this case. And because that sentence did not fall within the presumptive sentencing ranges contained within the Kansas sentencing guidelines drug grid, and the district court did not grant a departure, the sentence was illegal. K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504 does not permit a constitutional multiplicity challenge to a conviction because that claim falls outside the definition of an illegal sentence.

State v. Carr · filed 2026-06-26(c)(1)

And defendants' multiplicity challenge to the felony-murder conviction—Count 51—is grounded in constitutional doctrine and falls outside the illegal-sentence statute.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) limits an applicable statutory provision to one defining the crime, assigning the category of punishment, or involving criminal history classification.

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

As used in K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1), the phrase "applicable statutory provision" is limited to those statutory provisions that define the crime, assign the category of punishment, or involve the criminal history classification.

Section 22-3504(1) treats a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction as illegal.

State v. Barker · filed 2018-10-19(1)

An illegal sentence, as contemplated by K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(1), is "'"(1) a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) a sentence that does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in the character or the term of the authorized punishment; or (3) a sentence that is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served."' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Gray, 303 Kan. 1011, 1014, 368 P.3d 1113 (2016).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) permits correction of a sentence based on an incorrect offense severity level because that sentence does not conform to the applicable statutory punishment.

State v. Goins · filed 2022-09-09(c)(1)

Here, the district court originally imposed a sentence that did "not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment." See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1). Accordingly, based on Goins' plea to aggravated assault, a severity level 7 person felony, the original sentence was unlawful, and the district court properly resentenced him.

A sentence that conforms to the applicable sentencing statute is not illegal under § 22-3504(c)(1).

State v. Stubbs · filed 2022-09-16(c)(1)

An "illegal sentence" is 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. K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1). ... Stubbs' sentence conforms to K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6805(f) and is therefore not illegal.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) covers a sentence that does not conform to the applicable statute.

State v. McCain · filed 2022-11-23(c)(1)

Thus, we may appropriately consider her statutory illegal sentence claim under the second option identified in K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1), as a sentence not conforming to the applicable statute.

Section 22-3504 does not provide a remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, even when they challenge a sentence.

Mondragon v. State · filed 2018-02-09

But, on the contrary, "ineffective assistance of counsel claims do not fall within the narrow definition of an illegal sentence." State v. Labrum, No. 114,892, 2016 WL 5344099, at *3 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 306 Kan. 1326 (2017).

Section 22-3504 does not allow a sentence to be corrected as illegal solely because it violates Alleyne, which changed the law after the sentence was pronounced.

Drennan v. State · filed 2022-03-25(c)(1)

In other words, "'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.'" Appleby, 313 Kan. at 361 (Luckert, C.J., concurring) (quoting Coleman, 312 Kan. at 120).

Section 22-3504 does not make a sentence illegal merely because the defendant argues he should have been charged and sentenced for a different crime.

Davis v. State · filed 2021-05-07(c)(1)

A sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) when: (1) it is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) it does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or the term of punishment; or (3) it is ambiguous about the time and manner in which it is to be served. ... The court sentenced Davis for the specific crime he was convicted of—attempted first-degree murder. The court did not sentence him to a different crime.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence that fails to conform to applicable statutory provisions as illegal and permits vacatur and resentencing.

State v. Jesse · filed 2021-05-07(c)(1)

The State concedes that Jesse's sentence is illegal because it fails to conform to the applicable statutory provisions. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1). We therefore vacate Jesse's sentence for interference with law enforcement and remand the matter for resentencing.

Section 22-3504(3) treats a sentence as illegal when it fails to conform to applicable sentencing law, including an order that effectively changes how final sentences must be served.

State v. Cox · filed 2018-08-03(3)

The district court's order modifying the sentences imposed in 16CR65 and 16CR157 resulted in an illegal sentence. See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3) (defining illegal sentence to include sentence that fails to conform to applicable statutory provisions, in character or punishment); State v. Quested, 302 Kan. 262, 264-67, 352 P.3d 553 (2015) (analyzing challenge to imposition of consecutive sentences as illegal sentence for failing to conform to law).

Section 22-3504 does not treat a denial of allocution as an illegal sentence when the sentence otherwise conforms to the authorized punishment.

State v. Mebane · filed 2004-06-25(1)

The district court’s failure to comply with the statute requiring allocution does not mean that Mebane’s sentence “does not conform to the statutory provision, either in the character or the term of the punishment authorized.” Thus, Mebane’s sentence is not an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 does not treat a sentence as illegal when it conforms to the statute under which it was imposed, even if an identical offense carries a lesser penalty.

State v. Phinney · filed 2005-11-10

The sentence Phinney received under 65-7006(a) does not qualify as “illegal” under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504 does not treat the failure to calculate a hypothetical sentencing guidelines term as an illegal sentence when the imposed term conforms to the punishment authorized by statute.

State v. England · filed 2010-12-10

The fact that the trial court did not calculate the sentence that England would have received for his rape conviction under the KSGA does not make his sentence illegal.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence as illegal when its punishment exceeds what the governing statutes permit, even if the parties agreed to that sentence.

State v. McCarley · filed 2020-03-13(c)(1)

As defined in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1), an illegal sentence includes one that "does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment." ... The logic of the definition is inescapable: If the punishment imposed in a sentence deviates from the controlling statutes, it must be outside those statutes and, thus, illegal.

A probation term imposed under a statutory provision that does not apply to the offense is an illegal sentence that may be vacated and remanded for resentencing under the correct legal standard.

State v. Nelson · filed 2022-01-14(c)(1)

Our Supreme Court's holding in Hambright suggests the appropriate path forward under the circumstances is for our court to make a finding of an illegal sentence as related to the district court's error of law in extending probation under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6608(c)(5), vacate the sentence of probation, and remand with directions for the district court to resentence Nelson to probation under the correct legal standard.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum for the severity level of the offense of conviction.

State v. Collins · filed 2024-06-21(a)

As a result, Collins is serving a sentence on Count I that does not conform to the statutory maximum permitted for his severity level 2 conviction. Because it is an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3504, we vacate his sentence for Count I, and remand this case for resentencing.

A sentence is illegal under § 22-3504(c)(1) when its controlling oral pronouncement exceeds the maximum allowed by the applicable sentencing grid.

State v. Zongker · filed 2024-09-13(c)(1)

A sentence is illegal when it is imposed by a court without jurisdiction, fails to "conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment," or "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). ... Because the oral pronouncement for 15 months on Count 2 is the controlling sentence—Zongker should have been sentenced in accordance with grid box 8-F, which would have permitted a maximum sentence of 13 months—Zongker received an illegal sentence. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing on Count 2 only.

A probation term longer than the applicable sentencing statutes permit is an illegal sentence that may be corrected under § 22-3504.

State v. Myers · filed 2024-11-27(c)(1)

An illegal sentence is a sentence that: (1) is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or the term of punishment; or (3) is ambiguous about the time and manner in which it is to be served. K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1); see Mitchell, 315 Kan. at 158. Myers invokes the second provision here. ... Thus Myers' sentence of 24 months' probation is illegal because it does not conform to the relevant statute. We thus vacate in part and remand to the sentencing court to correct Myers' sentence in accordance with this opinion.

Section 22-3504 treats a sentence as contrary to an applicable statutory provision only when the provision defines the crime, assigns punishment, or governs criminal history classification; statutory double-jeopardy limits do not qualify.

State v. Cook · filed 2024-12-27(c)(1)

The phrase "applicable statutory provision" as used in K.S.A. 22-3504 means a provision defining the crime, assigning the category of punishment, or involving the criminal history classification, including whether a prior conviction was properly classified under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act. State v. Johnson, 317 Kan. 458, 461-62, 531 P.3d 1208 (2023). In other words, K.S.A. 22-3504 does not open the doors to correct a sentence when a defendant argues any statute was violated.

A sentence exceeding the applicable statutory maximum is illegal under § 22-3504 and must be vacated.

State v. Gomez · filed 2025-01-10(c)(1)

Because Gomez' 78-month sentence for attempted distribution of methamphetamine exceeds the statutorily allowed maximum sentence, it is illegal and therefore must be vacated.

Erroneous application of a special sentencing rule can make a sentence illegal under § 22-3504(c)(1) when it fails to conform to the applicable statute in character or punishment.

State v. Lund · filed 2025-02-14(c)(1)

Erroneous application of a special sentencing rule can result in an illegal sentence that does not conform to the appliable statutory provision either in character or punishment under K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence as illegal when its punishment does not conform to the statutory provision for the crime of conviction.

State v. Rushin · filed 2025-04-04(c)(1)

Rushin's current sentence is illegal because it does not conform to the applicable statutory provision in terms of punishment for the crime of conviction. See K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1).

A sentence is illegal under § 22-3504(c)(1) when it orders a mental evaluation after sentencing even though § 22-3429 permits that evaluation only before sentencing.

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

Still, we can determine whether he was illegally sentenced under K.S.A. 22-3504. ... The district court's order at sentencing to transport Shearer to Larned for a mental evaluation and PSI thus does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, which allows a court to send a defendant for a mental evaluation and report "[a]fter conviction and prior to sentence." K.S.A. 22-3429. To that extent, Shearer's sentence is illegal.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) treats a sentence that does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions as illegal.

State v. Yates · filed 2026-02-13(c)(1)

Thus, Yates' sentence is illegal because it does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions. See K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1).

A probation sentence within the statutory limit is not illegal under § 22-3504(c)(1) merely because the journal entry cites the wrong sentencing subsection.

State v. Warren · filed 2026-06-12(c)(1)

Under K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1), an illegal sentence is one "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." ... Because the district court did not go above the 60-month statutory limit when imposing Warren's probation in the 2018 case, we find that his sentence was not illegal. ... Likewise, we conclude that the district court's citation to the wrong subsection of K.S.A. 21-6608(c)—in the journal entry—did not render an otherwise legal sentence illegal.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) requires a colorable claim of an illegal sentence; a possible scenario of illegality without allegations showing how the sentence is illegal does not suffice.

State v. Llamas · filed 2021-05-14(c)(1)

Here, Llamas has not asserted that he actually received illegal sentences or even show how his sentences were allegedly illegal. He fails to make even conclusory allegations of illegality. Instead, he simply posits a possible scenario under which his sentences might have been illegal. Because of these omissions, we conclude that Llamas has failed to make a colorable claim that his sentences were illegal under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1).

A movant seeking to correct an illegal sentence must provide some evidentiary basis; conclusory assertions are insufficient.

State v. Roberts · filed 2020-09-04(c)(1)

Also, the movant—in this case Roberts—bears the burden of providing some evidentiary basis to support a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Conclusory assertions are not enough.

Section 22-3504(1) permits summary dismissal without a hearing or appointed counsel when the motion, files, and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

State v. Barnes · filed 2016-01-22(1)

We have clearly said that if an initial examination of the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively shows that the movant is not entitled to relief, the district court can dismiss the motion without a hearing or the appointment of counsel.

Section 22-3504(1) permits summary dismissal of a motion to correct an illegal sentence if preliminary examination reveals no substantial issue of law or fact.

State v. Duke · filed 1997-10-31(1)

In summary, we hold K.S.A. 22-3504(1) does not eliminate a district court’s duty to preliminarily examine a motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence to determine if substantial issues of law or fact are raised. If no such issues are found to have been raised, the motion may be summarily dismissed.

A district court may summarily deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence if a preliminary examination reveals no substantial issue of fact or law.

State v. Jones · filed 2005-06-03(1)

Under K.S.A. 22-3504(1), the court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. We have long authorized the district court, however, to make a preliminary examination of such a posttrial motion to determine whether the movant has raised substantial issues of fact or law. If the district court determines that no such issues are raised, the motion may be denied summarily.

Section 22-3504 does not automatically require appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing before a court summarily denies a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Heronemus · filed 2012-07-27

Heronemus argues that the district court erred as a matter of law in denying his motion without first appointing counsel and conducting an evidentiary hearing. He contends that the plain language of K.S.A. 22-3504 unambiguously grants a defendant these rights, i.e., it bars any summary disposition of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. We have previously, and explicitly, rejected this pure legal argument, and Heronemus presents no new arguments persuading us to revisit those decisions.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence may be denied summarily without a hearing or counsel when it states no substantial issue of law or fact.

State v. Moncla · filed 2015-03-06(1)

Moncla’s motion to correct illegal sentence did not state a substantial issue of law or fact, and we therefore affirm the district judge’s summary denial.

Section 22-3504 permits summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence when the motion, files, and records conclusively show that the defendant is not entitled to relief.

State v. Hayes · filed 2018-03-02

We have long held a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion may be summarily denied if the motion, files, and records conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief.

A court may summarily deny a motion to correct an illegal sentence when the motion, records, and files conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief.

State v. Collier – Biles – Affirmed – Sedgwick · filed 2017-06-02(1)

His argument is without merit because the motions, records, and files in the present case conclusively show Collier is not entitled to relief. Therefore, the district court did not err by summarily denying it.

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

State v. Sims · filed 2017-06-09(1)

This argument is without merit because the motions, records, and files in the present case conclusively show Sims is not entitled to relief. Therefore, the district court did not err by summarily denying the motion.

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

State v. Tyler · filed 2016-09-09

The motions, files, and records of the case conclusively show Tyler was not entitled to relief. Tyler was not entitled to a hearing and the district court did not err when it summarily denied his motion to correct an illegal sentence without his presence at a hearing.

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

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

Hopkins essentially asks this court to depart from the established rule that district courts may conduct an initial examination of an illegal sentence motion and to dismiss the motion without hearing if "the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief." State v. Jones, 292 Kan. 910, Syl. ¶ 1, 257 P.3d 268 (2011). But, as an intermediate appellate court, we are bound to Kansas Supreme Court precedent absent some indication that the court is departing from its previous position. See State v. Jones, 44 Kan. App. 2d 139, 142, 234 P.3d 31 (2010). As there is no indication that the Kansas Supreme Court intends to depart from Makthepharak and Jones, we decline Hopkins' invitation to recognize an exception to established law and affirm the district court's decision to summarily deny the motion to correct illegal sentence filed by Hopkins here.

Section 22-3504 permits denial without a hearing when a motion raises no claim that meets the definition of an illegal sentence.

State v. Labrum · filed 2016-09-23

Because Labrum's motion to correct an illegal sentence does not set forth any claims that meet the definition of an illegal sentence, the district court rightly denied the motion on those grounds without a hearing.

Section 22-3504 does not require a district court summarily denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence to explicitly state that the motion presents no substantial issue of law or fact.

State v. Wright · filed 2017-04-07

However, the plain language of Taylor does not require an explicit finding that no substantial issues of law or fact exist.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence may be summarily denied without appointing counsel when the motion, files, and records conclusively show that the defendant has no right to relief.

State v. Richardson · filed 2021-09-17

A K.S.A. 22-3504 motion may be summarily denied without the appointment of counsel when the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the defendant has no right to relief.

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

State v. Whitaker · filed 2023-11-09(a)

Based on the district court's review of the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, the court may handle the motion in three different ways, including by denying the motion "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." Hoge, 283 Kan. at 224.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit reversal of a conviction based on a defective charging document through a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Robertson · filed 2019-04-19(1)

We affirm the summary denial of Robertson's motion because he cannot collaterally attack a conviction through a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 that claims a defective complaint meant the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict.

Section 22-3504 applies to challenges to sentences, not convictions, and does not establish appellate jurisdiction for a direct appeal challenging a conviction.

– State v. Smith – · filed 2020-01-31

K.S.A. 22-3504 allows appeals of sentences, not convictions, and the federal caselaw allowing for direct appeals after guilty pleas in certain situations is inapplicable here.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of an illegal sentence but cannot be used to collaterally challenge a conviction.

State v. Blaurock · filed 2020-02-07

Standing in the way of Blaurock's claims is K.S.A. 22-3504, which does not create a vehicle for a defendant to challenge a conviction collaterally.

Section 22-3504(1) does not allow a defendant to reverse a conviction based on a defective charging document through a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Robertson · filed 2019-04-19(1)

We have repeatedly emphasized a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not an appropriate vehicle to reverse a conviction because of a defective charging document.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of an illegal sentence but does not provide a vehicle to attack the underlying conviction.

State v. Macomber · filed 2019-08-02

We disagree and conclude that Macomber's motion to correct an illegal sentence is not a proper vehicle to attack his convictions.

Section 22-3504(1) allows correction of an illegal sentence, but a challenge to the underlying plea or conviction is not a proper basis for that motion.

State v. Washington · filed 2017-09-29(1)

Washington does not allege his sentence is illegal under one of the three grounds set forth in Taylor. Instead, he takes issue with his plea. This is not a proper basis for a motion to correct illegal sentence. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Washington's motion to correct illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) does not allow a multiplicity claim because such a claim does not assert that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction.

State v. Reed · filed 2018-02-02(1)

A claim that sentences are multiplicitous is not a claim that the sentences were imposed by a court without jurisdiction as is necessary to come within the narrow definition of illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1).

Section 22-3504(1) does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence to overturn a conviction based on alleged trial errors.

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

As Stevenson acknowledges, Kansas appellate courts repeatedly have found that a motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1) is not the proper vehicle to overturn a conviction. See, e.g., State v. Trotter, 296 Kan. 898, 902, 295 P.3d 1039 (2013). Stevenson does not allege his sentence is illegal under one of the three Taylor grounds. Instead, his motion alleged "trial errors" and refutes evidence presented at trial. This is not a proper basis for a motion to correct illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) cannot be used to challenge a conviction based on a defective charging document when the sentence is authorized for the crime of conviction.

State v. Edwards · filed 2016-07-01(1)

Consequently, Edwards cannot use a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge his aggravated kidnapping convictions and without overturning those convictions his sentences were statutorily authorized, i.e., not illegal.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of an illegal sentence but does not allow a challenge to the underlying conviction, including a speedy trial claim.

State v. Taylor · filed 2014-03-14

It is well established that K.S.A. 22-3504 is a vehicle to correct an illegal sentence and not a mechanism to reverse a conviction.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of a sentence but cannot be used to reverse a conviction based on alleged jury instruction error.

State v. Gilbert · filed 2014-06-06(1)

K.S.A. 22-3504 is solely a vehicle to correct a sentence. It is not a mechanism to reverse a conviction.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a multiplicity challenge to convictions through a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Bradford · filed 2014-04-25

Consistent with Sims and Edwards, we conclude the issue raised in Bradford’s motion is not a sentencing matter but rather is a collateral attack on his convictions, and it is an improper issue when raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 authorizes correction of an illegal sentence but does not provide a remedy for reversing a conviction.

State v. Ford · filed 2015-07-31

Since our decision in Davis, we have frequently and consistently held that the relief available through a motion to correct an illegal sentence is correction of a sentence, not reversal of a conviction.

Section 22-3504(1) does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence to serve as a collateral attack on the conviction.

Hunt v. State · filed 2015-09-18(1)

Nevertheless, even if the entirety of the district court's decision is properly reviewable, the district court still did not err because, as the district court found and the State reiterates on appeal, a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not a proper vehicle to mount a collateral attack upon a conviction.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of an illegal sentence but cannot be used to attack the underlying conviction.

State v. Hernandez · filed 2018-06-29

So the district court properly concluded that Hernandez could not use a motion under K.S.A. 22-3504 to attack his conviction, and summary denial was appropriate.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of a sentence but does not allow a challenge to the conviction.

State v. Manco · filed 2018-07-13

A challenge to a conviction and not a sentence cannot be raised through a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge the underlying conviction.

State v. Terrell · filed 2018-08-10(1)

First, as Terrell acknowledges in his brief, our Supreme Court has held in many cases that a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not a proper vehicle for a defendant to challenge his or her underlying conviction, which is what Terrell is doing here. ... There being no such indication, we find that Terrell may not properly raise this issue under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a court in a multiconviction case to resentence only the illegal sentences when correcting them.

State v. Jamerson · filed 2019-01-25(1)

As explained above, the district court does not have authority to resentence anew for all of the convictions in a multiple conviction case when only one or more, but not all, of the sentences are illegal. The court may only resentence the illegal sentence(s).

Section 22-3504 does not provide relief for a multiplicity claim because that claim attacks the conviction rather than the sentence.

Griffin v. State · filed 2020-05-22

If Griffin's motion were a motion to correct an illegal sentence, it would be improper. A claim that multiple sentences arose from a single wrongful act and were multiplicitious in violation of double jeopardy does not establish that a sentence is illegal.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of an illegal sentence but cannot be used to challenge the validity of an underlying conviction.

State v. Edmond · filed 2021-09-24

A motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the validity of a conviction.

Section 22-3504 cannot be used to challenge the validity of a guilty plea or the resulting conviction as an illegal sentence.

State v. Bolitho · filed 2022-05-27(c)(1)

Bolitho cannot use K.S.A. 22- 3504 to challenge the validity of his pleas and the convictions that followed.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not treat an alleged statutory speedy trial violation or denial of allocution as an illegal sentence when the claim does not concern jurisdiction, conformity to the applicable sentencing statute, or ambiguity in how the sentence is served.

State v. Mitchell · filed 2022-03-11(c)(1)

But neither of Mitchell's arguments give rise to a claim of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504. The illegal sentence statute is one of specific and limited application. Alford, 308 Kan. at 1338. Mitchell's assertions of a statutory speedy trial rights violation and the denial of his right to allocution do not involve claims that divest the district court of jurisdiction. Nor do they allege that his sentence did not conform to the applicable statutory provision or was ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it was to be served.

A speedy trial violation does not make a sentence illegal under § 22-3504(c)(1), so it cannot be raised through a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Adkins · filed 2022-07-29(c)(1)

Thus, Adkins' claim that the district court violated his speedy trial rights does not render his sentence illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504 does not permit correction of a sentence based on trial fairness or due process concerns that do not make the sentence illegal under the statute.

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

Nguyen's claims do not fit within the definition of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504. Moreover, Nguyen's motion attacking his sentences cannot be construed as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. His arguments go the fairness of his trial and other due process concerns, not to the statutory illegality of his sentence.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of an illegal sentence but does not allow a defective complaint claim to be used to reverse a conviction.

State v. Ross · filed 2022-06-10

Defective complaint claims are not properly raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504.