Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3504

Section 22-3504 allows correction of an illegal sentence while the defendant serves it, but does not permit a challenge to the conviction itself.

State v. Smalling · filed 2024-07-05(a)

As in Smith, because Smalling appeals his convictions rather than his sentence, K.S.A. 22-3504 fails to establish this court's jurisdiction to hear his direct appeal.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to be used to collaterally attack the underlying conviction.

State v. Woods · filed 2022-12-16

A motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504 cannot be used to collaterally attack a conviction.

Section 22-3504 does not provide relief for challenges to the admission or sufficiency of evidence that attack a conviction rather than the legality of a sentence.

State v. Vasquez · filed 2022-06-03(c)(1)

Here, that unlimited review shows that, even under a liberal reading of Vasquez' pleadings, none of the alleged errors fall within the narrow parameters of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504. All the arguments concern rulings about the admission or the sufficiency of evidence. Vasquez attacks his convictions, not the legality of this sentence.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to be used to collaterally challenge a conviction.

State v. Brown · filed 2024-03-01

He could not use a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22-3504 because such a motion may not be used to collaterally challenge a conviction.

Section 22-3504’s motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot be used to raise a constitutional claim.

State v. Reynolds · filed 2021-08-27

Reynolds also argues that his sentence is unconstitutional. However, a motion to correct an illegal sentence "is an improper procedural vehicle for a constitutional claim." State v. Warrior, 303 Kan. 1008, Syl., 368 P.3d 1111 (2016). Accordingly, we do not consider it.

Section 22-3504 does not permit correction at any time merely because a sentence is claimed to violate a constitutional provision.

State v. Glaze · filed 2019-07-12

And 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) does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a constitutional challenge to the sentence.

State v. Rogers · filed 2019-04-26(1)

K.S.A. 22-3504(1) has very limited applicability and it does not cover a claim that a sentence violates a constitutional provision.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence under § 22-3504(1) cannot be used to challenge a sentence on constitutional grounds.

State v. Leffel · filed 2019-12-13(1)

An illegal-sentence motion has narrow applicability, and a defendant may not file one based on a constitutional challenge to the sentence.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a constitutional challenge to a sentence through a claim that the sentence is illegal.

State v. Villela · filed 2020-01-10

Villela's constitutional claims cannot be raised to challenge his sentence here as illegal because, as in Bryant, the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that the sentence violates a constitutional provision.

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

Hayes v. State · filed 2017-11-09

In State v. Wood, 306 Kan. 283, 393 P.3d 631 (2017), and State v. Reese, 306 Kan. 279, 393 P.3d 599 (2017), we held that the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that a criminal sentence violates a constitutional provision, so a defendant may not file a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on constitutional challenges to his or her sentence. Hayes may not press his constitutional challenge in a motion to correct illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a constitutional violation or a challenge to the constitutionality of another sentencing statute.

State v. Amos · filed 2017-12-15(1)

A claim that a sentence is illegal because it violates the constitution cannot be brought via K.S.A. 22-3504(1), nor can a motion to correct an illegal sentence be used as a procedural mechanism for declaring K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6620(f) unconstitutional.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a claim that the sentence is unconstitutional.

State v. Albright · filed 2018-02-02

Because Albright challenges the constitutionality of his sentence, a motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot provide the relief he seeks.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a constitutional challenge, including a claim under Alleyne.

State v. Albright · filed 2018-02-02

Because the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that the sentence violates a constitutional provision, a party cannot use a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 to seek relief based on the constitutional holding in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013).

Section 22-3504 does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a constitutional challenge to the sentence.

Kirtdoll v. State · filed 2017-05-12

Consequently, to the extent that Kirtdoll's motion is considered a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22- 3504, it would fail the first step of the Gaudina analysis, i.e., the constitutional issue is not properly raised in the chosen form of collateral attack.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a due process challenge based on a sentencing court’s mistaken view of criminal history when the sentence conforms to the governing statute.

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

A claim that a sentence fails to conform to constitutional requirements is not a claim that the sentence fails to conform to statutory requirements 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 based on a constitutional challenge to the sentence.

Stafford v. State · filed 2017-06-23(1)

Because the definition of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1) 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.

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

Buehler-May v. State · filed 2017-07-28(1)

Because the definition of an illegal sentence does not encompass violations of constitutional provisions, a defendant may not challenge a sentence on constitutional grounds under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504 permits courts to consider motions to correct illegal sentences, but an alleged constitutional violation does not make a sentence illegal under the section.

State v. Kilpatrick · filed 2017-07-28

We then held that the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a sentence that allegedly violates a constitutional provision. ... Thus, according to our holdings in Wood and Reese, the lower courts had jurisdiction to hear and consider Kilpatrick's motion as a motion to correct an illegal sentence made pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504. But that motion advanced no meritorious argument demonstrating Kilpatrick's sentence was illegal, so his claim fails on the merits.

Section 22-3504 permits a court to consider a motion to correct an illegal sentence, but an alleged constitutional violation does not make the sentence illegal.

State v. Donaldson · filed 2017-07-28

We then held that the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a sentence that allegedly violates a constitutional provision. ... Thus, according to our holdings in Wood and Reese, the lower courts had jurisdiction to hear and consider Donaldson's motion as a motion to correct an illegal sentence made pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to serve as a vehicle for a constitutional claim.

State v. Long · filed 2016-07-22(1)

Our Supreme Court ruled that a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(l) is an improper vehicle for a constitutional claim. The Warrior decision resolves both of Long's arguments because they are based on claims of unconstitutionality.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a due process challenge to a procedural bar on appellate review of a sentence because that claim falls outside the limited definition of an illegal sentence.

State v. Hankins · filed 2016-04-22(1)

A claim that a procedural bar to the appellate review of a sentence violates due process does not fit within the limited definition of an illegal sentence for K.S.A. 22- 3504 purposes.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a constitutional challenge to a sentence because constitutional violations are outside its definition of an illegal sentence.

State v. Clements · filed 2015-12-18(1)

As Clements acknowledges in his motion, our Supreme Court has held that because the definition of an illegal sentence does not encompass violations of constitutional provisions, a defendant may not challenge a sentence on constitutional grounds under K.S.A. 22-3504. State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549, 553-54, 343 P.3d 1161 (2015) (citing State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374, 377, 162 P.3d 18 [2007]). Thus, the district court did not err in denying Clements any relief under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(1) does not treat a constitutional challenge to a sentence, including a double jeopardy challenge, as a claim that the sentence is illegal.

State v. Rincon · filed 2015-12-23(1)

But a constitutional challenge to a sentence does not result in an illegal sentence within the meaning of K.S.A. 22-3504(1). See State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374, 377, 162 P.3d 18 (2007). This includes a challenge that a sentence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence under § 22-3504(1) cannot be used to raise a constitutional challenge to the sentence.

State v. Warrior · filed 2016-03-11(1)

A motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1) is an improper procedural vehicle for a constitutional claim.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge the constitutionality of a sentencing statute.

State v. Lee · filed 2016-04-29(1)

Whether the timing of subsequent decisions gives the appearance of “unfairness,” as the district court ruled, is irrelevant: Lee’s claim is inappropriate because a motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot be used to attack the constitutionality of a sentencing statute.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a constitutional challenge to the sentence, including a claim under Alleyne.

Verge v. State · filed 2014-07-18

A sentence is illegal only if it fits within the definition. ... Similarly, Verge's constitutional challenge based upon Alleyne would also fail.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a constitutional challenge to a sentence in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Trotter v. State · filed 2017-02-03

Clear Supreme Court precedent establishes that Trotter could not raise a constitutional challenge to his sentence in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a defendant to challenge a sentence on constitutional grounds through a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Allman · filed 2018-10-26(1)

Because the definition of an illegal sentence does not encompass violations of constitutional provisions, a defendant may not challenge a sentence on constitutional grounds under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504.

A double jeopardy claim waived by a no contest plea does not establish an illegal sentence under section 22-3504(c)(1).

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

He has not shown that the general rule—precluding a double jeopardy claim after a no contest plea—should be abandoned here. And in turn he has not shown that his sentence is illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504(3) defines an illegal sentence narrowly and does not permit correction based solely on a constitutional violation.

State v. Hayes · filed 2021-03-05(3)

The illegal sentence statute, K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(3), defines an illegal sentence as one imposed by a court without jurisdiction, one that does not conform to statutes, or one that is ambiguous. This court has long held the plain language of this narrow statutory definition does not include a claim that the sentence is illegal because it violates a constitutional provision.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on constitutional error in sentencing, including judicial vindictiveness.

State v. Lewis · filed 2021-04-30(c)(1)

A claim of constitutional error in sentencing, however, is not appropriately raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a motion to correct a sentence based on an Alleyne violation.

State v. Appleby · filed 2021-04-30

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."

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to assert constitutional challenges to the sentence.

State v. Jones · filed 2021-11-19(c)(1)

However, filing a motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 is not the proper procedure to assert constitutional challenges.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a defendant to challenge a sentence on due process grounds because a constitutional violation is outside its definition of an illegal sentence.

State v. Horn · filed 2021-10-22(c)(1)

Because the definition of an illegal sentence does not encompass violations of constitutional provisions, a defendant may not challenge a sentence on constitutional grounds under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on an alleged Alleyne constitutional violation.

State v. Martis · filed 2024-10-11

Coleman makes clear a sentence imposed in violation of Alleyne does not fall within K.S.A. 22-3504's definition of an "illegal sentence."

Section 22-3504 does not allow a constitutional challenge to a sentence to be litigated through a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Feliciano · filed 2024-11-01

Because Feliciano raises a constitutional claim— which cannot be litigated as an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504—we must reject his claim.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a defendant to challenge a sentence on constitutional grounds because its definition of an illegal sentence excludes constitutional violations.

State v. Johnson · filed 2025-03-07(c)(1)

Because the definition of an illegal sentence does not encompass violations of constitutional provisions, a defendant may not challenge a sentence on constitutional grounds under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504 does not cover a claim that a sentence is illegal because it violates a constitutional provision, including an Apprendi claim.

State v. Hartman · filed 2025-09-05

We decline to address Hartman's sentencing claims for the first time on appeal. Despite his arguments to the contrary, Hartman's illegal sentence claim is merely a constitutional Apprendi challenge in disguise. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000). And the Kansas Supreme Court has held that K.S.A. 22-3504 does not cover a claim that a sentence is illegal because it violates a constitutional provision.

Section 22-3504(a) does not permit an illegal-sentence claim based on an alleged constitutional violation.

State v. Sanders · filed 2025-01-10(a)

Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that K.S.A. 22-3504(a) does not cover a claim that a sentence violates a constitutional provision. ... His illegal sentence claim necessarily fails.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a constitutional challenge to the sentencing statute or procedure.

State v. Brown · filed 2025-06-06(c)(1)

Attacks on the constitutionality of the sentencing statutes or the sentencing procedure do not equate to a failure to conform to the statute and do not meet the definition of an illegal sentence.

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

State v. Clay · filed 2026-03-27(c)(1)

But Kansas caselaw is clear that the statutory definition of "illegal sentence" does not allow challenging the legality of a sentence on constitutional grounds.

Section 22-3504 does not provide relief for a claim that a sentence is unconstitutional.

State v. Jones · filed 2026-04-17

It is well-settled law that the constitutionality of a sentence is not a valid ground for relief under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504 does not provide a procedural vehicle to resolve a claim of judicial vindictiveness.

State v. Denney · filed 2026-03-13

Because a motion to correct illegal sentence is not an appropriate procedural vehicle to resolve a claim of judicial vindictiveness and Denny has failed to show that the district court was either vindictive or failed to consider mitigating factors, we find that the district court properly denied the motion on this contention.

Section 22-3504 does not permit correction of a sentence on the ground that it violates the Sixth Amendment rule in Apprendi.

State v. Walker · filed 2026-04-17

Walker's claim of unconstitutionality does not assist his position. Our Supreme Court has found K.S.A. 22-3504, the statute requiring correction of illegal sentences at any time, "does not include a claim that the sentence is illegal because it violates a constitutional provision. And Apprendi's holding rests on constitutional grounds, specifically on the Sixth Amendment. 530 U.S. at 476-77. [Citations omitted.]" State v. Hayes, 312 Kan. 865, 868, 481 P.3d 1205 (2021).

Section 22-3504(1) permits correction of an illegal sentence at any time, but a constitutional violation alone generally does not make a sentence illegal.

State v. Polk · filed 2018-09-21(1)

K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(1) provides that a court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. A defendant may challenge a sentence even for the first time on appeal. State v. Fisher, 304 Kan. 263, 264, 373 P.3d 781 (2016). However, generally, a sentence is not illegal if it is illegal only due to a constitutional violation. State v. Lee, 304 Kan. 416, 418, 372 P.3d 415 (2016). Thus, even if the court were to construe Polk's argument as a motion to correct illegal sentence, he is not entitled to relief.

Section 22-3504 does not permit correction at any time of a sentence claimed to violate a constitutional provision.

State v. Parker · filed 2019-09-27

And 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 does not permit correction at any time merely because a sentence is claimed to violate a constitutional provision.

State v. Haskell · filed 2020-03-13

And a claim that a sentence violates a constitutional provision does not make the sentence illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504, allowing it to be corrected at any time.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a claim that the sentence violates the constitution.

State v. Lovett · filed 2020-09-11(c)(1)

But the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that the sentence violates a constitutional provision. As a result, Lovett may not use a motion to correct an illegal sentence to argue that his sentence is unconstitutional.

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

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

The definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that the sentence violates a constitutional provision. As a result, a defendant may not move to correct an illegal sentence based on constitutional challenges to his or her sentence.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a claim that the sentence is unconstitutional.

State v. R.H. · filed 2021-07-02(c)(1)

Because this narrow, statutory definition does not include a claim that a sentence violates a constitutional provision, a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 is not a proper vehicle to raise such a constitutional challenge.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence to raise constitutional challenges to the sentence.

State v. Riolo · filed 2021-09-17

Because Riolo cannot raise the constitutionality of his sentence through a motion to correct an illegal sentence, we find that the motions, records, and files conclusively show Riolo is not entitled to relief.

Section 22-3504 does not provide a remedy for a constitutional challenge to a sentence.

State v. Jesse · filed 2024-01-19

But fatal to this argument is the well-established Kansas Supreme Court mandate that a criminal defendant cannot use a motion to correct illegal sentence to argue their sentence is unconstitutional. See State v. Bryant, 310 Kan. 920, 922-23, 453 P.3d 279 (2019) (holding that motion to correct an illegal sentence is an inappropriate vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a sentence). Accordingly, we cannot consider his constitutional claim at this stage of the proceeding.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge the constitutional validity of a waiver of jury determination of upward departure aggravating factors.

State v. Mock · filed 2024-01-26(c)(1)

Under Johnson, Mock cannot raise his constitutional arguments as part of his motion to correct an illegal sentence and, without that link, his sentence is merely one agreed upon by the parties that the district court approved on the record, which reviewing courts do not have jurisdiction to analyze on appeal.

Section 22-3504(c)(1)'s definition of an illegal sentence excludes claims that a sentence violates a constitutional provision.

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

The State is correct that the definition of an "illegal sentence" under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) does not include a claim that a sentence is illegal because it violates a constitutional provision. Hence, we find that Johnson is precluded from raising a constitutional challenge or an Apprendi violation in this appeal.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a claim that the sentence violates Alleyne.

State v. Brown · filed 2017-05-12(1)

A claim that a sentence was imposed in violation of the constitutional holding in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013), does not fit within the definition of an illegal sentence that may be addressed with a K.S.A. 22- 3504(1) motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a defendant to challenge a sentence on constitutional grounds through a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Steele · filed 2018-11-02

Alternatively, the State says Steele's challenge is improper because a motion under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504 cannot rest on purported constitutional violations. We consider only the alternative argument, since it is dispositive. The Kansas Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a statutory motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot raise constitutional claims as a means of attacking the sentence. ... The district court correctly denied Steele's motion for that reason.

Section 22-3504 does not cover a request to reconsider probation revocation based on how the court exercised its discretion.

State v. Strong · filed 2021-07-02(c)(1)

That's an argument to the court about how to exercise its discretion and a request for a sentence modification, not a claim that the sentence was illegal.

Section 22-3504 does not cover a claim that a court failed to impose intermediate sanctions before revoking probation.

State v. Benjamin · filed 2021-09-24

Benjamin argues this court can hear his case at any time, regardless of whether he preserved the issue, because the district court's probation revocation constituted an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504. However, the Kansas Supreme Court has recently held that a district court's failure to impose intermediate sanctions for probation violations "does not fall within the scope of the illegal sentence statute." State v. McCroy, 313 Kan. 531, 539, 486 P.3d 618 (2021). Benjamin's illegal sentence argument fails, but his claim is preserved as stated above, and the State failed to argue otherwise.

Section 22-3504 permits a motion to correct a sentence that does not conform to the applicable statutory punishment.

State v. Nixon · filed 2019-12-06(3)

Thus, Nixon raises a proper illegal sentence claim because he is claiming that his sentences for aggravated criminal sodomy and sexual exploitation of a child do not "conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment." K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(3).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not treat KDOC's interpretation of sentence aggregation as an illegal sentence.

State v. Harbacek · filed 2020-04-17(c)(1)

But the KDOC's interpretation of Harbacek's sentence does not amount to an illegal sentence under the provisions of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504(a) permits review of an unpreserved sentencing claim when misclassification of a prior conviction would result in an illegal sentence.

State v. Patton · filed 2020-09-11(a)

Although Patton did not object to the district court's classification of him as a fourth or subsequent DUI offender, this court may review his claim for the first time on appeal because misclassification of a prior conviction results in an illegal sentence. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(a); State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018, 1034, 350 P.3d 1054 (2015).

Section 22-3504 does not apply to a denial of parole because a parole denial is not a sentence.

State v. Buford · filed 2017-12-01

K.S.A. 22-3504 is inapplicable to Buford's argument because the denial of parole is not a sentence. Buford's sentence is life imprisonment.

Section 22-3504(1) does not provide a remedy for a court’s failure to impose intermediate probation sanctions or make particularized findings before bypassing them.

State v. Kafka · filed 2015-12-18(1)

We are persuaded that, in addition to the procedural bar discussed earlier, K.S.A. 22-3504(1) is not the appropriate statutory vehicle to address Kafka's claim that the district court erred in failing to impose one of the intermediate sanctions set forth in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3716(c) or in failing to make particularized findings for bypassing the statutory graduated sanctions framework.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a procedural competency claim, including a failure to order a competency hearing.

State v. Jones · filed 2015-12-18

A sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504 if it is imposed by a court without jurisdiction, if it does not conform to the applicable statutory provision either in the character or the term of authorized punishment, or if it is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served. ... Based on Ford, Donaldson, and this court's prior decisions in Jones' own appeals, Jones cannot obtain the relief that he seeks through a motion to correct illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 does not cover challenges to the KDOC's calculation of a sentence to determine an inmate's release date; those challenges belong under K.S.A. 60-1501.

State v. Bohanon · filed 2018-06-15

Challenges to the calculation of a sentence by the KDOC to determine an inmate's release date are properly brought under K.S.A. 60-1501—not under K.S.A. 60- 1507 or K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(1) does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence to collaterally attack a district court’s finding that the defendant violated probation.

State v. Horton · filed 2018-08-17(1)

If we do not allow a defendant to challenge his or her conviction of a crime under K.S.A. 22-3504, it follows that a probation violator cannot use K.S.A. 22-3504 to collaterally attack the district court's guilt determination at a probation violation hearing.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a claim that the sentence violates the United States Constitution.

State v. Samuel · filed 2019-01-11(1)

A claim that a criminal sentence is illegal because it violates the United States Constitution cannot be brought under K.S.A. 22-3504(1).

A challenge to the sentencing jury’s consideration of allegedly improper hearsay does not qualify as an illegal sentence under § 22-3504.

State v. Alford · filed 2018-10-26(3)

Because Alford's argument does not fit within the statutory definition of an illegal sentence, we conclude he cannot raise this hearsay argument in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a claim that the sentence violates the United States Constitution.

State v. Donahue · filed 2019-02-08(1)

A claim that a criminal sentence is illegal because it violates the United States Constitution cannot be brought under K.S.A. 22-3504(1).

Section 22-3504 does not provide a remedy for a procedural competency claim because a procedural defect does not deprive the sentencing court of jurisdiction.

State v. Roberts · filed 2019-03-08

A merely procedural failure to comply with the competency statute, K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3302, is not jurisdictional; thus, "a motion to correct an illegal sentence is foreclosed as a mechanism for correcting a procedural competency claim." 302 Kan. 455, Syl. ¶ 4.

A sentence is not illegal under § 22-3504 merely because the district court did not expressly deny a durational departure request before imposing a guidelines sentence.

State v. Stanford · filed 2020-05-01

As to Stanford's claim that his sentence is illegal because the district court failed to rule on his durational departure motion, we agree with the State that Stanford's sentence is not illegal because the district court implicitly rejected his request for a durational departure by imposing a guidelines sentence.

A court should treat a filing that invokes § 22-3504 and asserts an illegal sentence as a motion to correct an illegal sentence despite its habeas corpus form.

Stark v. State · filed 2020-09-25

Although Stark used a habeas corpus motion form to file his motion, he barely filled in the preprinted sections of the form and instead included multiple typed pages containing his argument. He starts by citing K.S.A. 22-3504 and stating that he can bring a motion to correct illegal sentence at any time because such a motion is not subject to the same time constraints as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Thus, the district court should have treated Stark's motion as a motion to correct illegal sentence and not as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

Section 22-3504(c) limits illegal-sentence claims to specified defects in the sentence; a challenge to the factual basis for a no contest plea attacks the conviction instead.

State v. Redstone · filed 2021-03-12(c)

Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c), 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 at the time it is pronounced. But Redstone does not argue that his sentence falls within any of these definitions. Instead, Redstone's brief alleges the district court erred by accepting an insufficient factual basis for his no contest plea. That challenge asserts the invalidity of Redstone's conviction.

Section 22-3504 does not permit correction of a sentence based on errors in the proceedings that certified a juvenile for trial as an adult.

State v. Valdez · filed 2021-11-12

And even if that multiplicity problem somehow rendered the process used to certify Valdez as an adult erroneous, an erroneous certification cannot render a resulting sentence illegal under the narrow definition of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not permit a challenge to the sentencing court’s finding of an aggravating factor when the resulting sentence is authorized by statute and unambiguous.

State v. Juiliano · filed 2022-02-18(c)(1)

Juiliano's sentence 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 limited definition of an illegal sentence set forth in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 necessarily forecloses Juiliano's illegal sentence claim based on the district court's aggravated factor finding.

Section 22-3504 does not provide a remedy for prison conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic when the defendant does not challenge the sentence itself.

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

Given the record before us, Jones' current effort to have his sentences declared illegal strikes us as misplaced because Jones is not attacking his sentences. His real complaint concerns the conditions of his confinement, meaning a more appropriate avenue for relief may be K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1501, which allows a prisoner to challenge the conditions of confinement.

A pleading that seeks resentencing because the defendant allegedly was charged with a lesser offense states a motion to correct an illegal sentence, without being recast as an ineffective-assistance claim.

State v. Andersen · filed 2022-03-18

First, the trial court's reading of Andersen's motion was correct because the pleading's content clearly establishes a claim of illegal sentence rather than a collateral attack on his conviction.

Section 22-3504 permits a motion claiming that a sentence is illegal because it does not conform to the statutes governing criminal history scores.

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

Because Shipley's motion contends that his sentence does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, we consider it to have been properly brought under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge procedural omissions in imposing an otherwise lawful fine; the proper remedy is a direct appeal.

State v. Vaughan · filed 2022-08-05(1)

Kansas courts have declined to find that similar sentencing procedure based challenges have a place among the exclusive criteria articulated in K.S.A. 22-3504(1). ... We will follow their lead. Vaughan's motion presented no meritorious argument demonstrating his sentence is illegal.

Section 22-3504(b) does not authorize the sentencing court to address an allegation that the Department of Corrections miscalculated a defendant’s release date.

State v. McClough · filed 2025-04-18(b)

K.S.A. 22-3504(b) does not give the sentencing court the authority to address allegations that the KDOC erroneously calculated a defendant's release date.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on a probation modification, extension, or revocation because probation is not part of the sentence.

State v. Jackson · filed 2025-08-29(c)(1)

Likewise, the modification of a probation by extension of its term is not a modification of the sentence. Accordingly, claims related to probation modifications, extensions, or revocations are not properly brought as a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 permits correction only of a sentence; court costs such as BIDS application and sexual assault kit/exam fees cannot be challenged through a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. VanArsdale · filed 2025-12-12

But even if we construe VanArsdale's motion as he requests, the fees he challenges are costs and cannot be challenged as part of a motion to correct illegal sentence because they are not a part of his sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) gives a defendant full credit for time spent in custody when a court corrects an illegal sentence.

State v. Paxton · filed 2019-12-13(1)

When a court corrects an illegal sentence, the defendant receives full credit for the time spent in custody. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(1).

Section 22-3504(2) permits a motion to correct a clerical error in jail credit even when the defendant did not raise jail credit on direct appeal.

State v. Smith · filed 2019-05-31(2)

We hold Smith's failure to raise the issue of jail credit on direct appeal does not foreclose a motion under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(2).

Section 22-3504 does not treat a claim of insufficient jail time credit as an illegal sentence.

State v. McNelly · filed 2019-11-27

Moreover, a claim that the district court has awarded an insufficient amount of jail time credit does not equate to an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(2) allows a court to correct a clerical error in a judgment that fails to credit all time spent in jail.

State v. Lawson · filed 2017-10-13(2)

K.S.A 22-3504(2) states: "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." ... Because Lawson was not credited with all the time he spent in jail, we remand to the trial court with directions to correct this clerical error.

An error in awarding jail-time credit does not make a sentence illegal under § 22-3504(1).

State v. Lebeuf · filed 2017-06-02(1)

The district court's only error was refusing to award jail credit, which doesn't make his sentence illegal.

Subsection (2) permits a court to consider a motion for jail time credit after sentencing if it has not previously made a considered ruling on credit after hearing both parties.

State v. Blazier · filed 2017-08-18(2)

However, in State v. Storer, 53 Kan. App. 2d 1, 382 P.3d 467 (2016), the court determined that a district court may consider a motion for jail time credit at any time, as long as it has not previously made a considered ruling on the issue after hearing from both parties. 53 Kan. App. 2d at 3. The Storer court reasoned that K.S.A. 22-3504(2) grants jurisdiction, since it allows a court to correct clerical mistakes in judgments at any time, and jail time credit determinations are essentially clerical tasks at sentencing. 53 Kan. App. 2d at 4-5. Under Storer, we have jurisdiction to hear Blazier's appeal.

Section 22-3504(1) does not allow a jail-time-credit motion to be treated as a motion to correct an illegal sentence when the movant seeks more credit without asserting that the sentence is illegal.

State v. Burnett · filed 2016-01-15(1)

In State v. Lofton, 272 Kan. 216, 217, 32 P.3d 711 (2001), our Supreme Court held that a defendant's jail-time-credit motion cannot be construed as a motion to correct an illegal sentence when a defendant merely challenges the trial court's jail-time-credit determination without asserting that his or her sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504(1). In Burnett's motion, Burnett never asserts that his sentence is illegal. Burnett merely asserts that he is entitled to more jail-time credit. Thus, based on our Supreme Court's holding in Lofton, this court cannot construe Burnett's motion as a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 requires full credit for time spent under house arrest when an illegal sentence is corrected, with the balance of the required imprisonment served in jail.

State v. Scherzer · filed 1994-03-04

As required by K.S.A. 22-3504, Scherzer is to be given full credit for the time spent under house arrest and ordered to serve the balance of the 90-day imprisonment in the county jail as required by 21-3405b.

Section 22-3504(1) does not require a hearing, the defendant’s presence, or appointed counsel when a motion disputes only jail time credit and raises no claim of an illegal sentence.

State v. Lofton · filed 2001-10-19(1)

On its face the motion filed herein clearly shows there was no claim of illegal sentence, but rather a claim that insufficient jail time was credited against the sentence imposed. There is, accordingly, no error in the district court’s summary denial of the motion herein without affording the defendant a hearing, his personal presence at the hearing, and appointment of counsel as provided by K.S.A. 22-3504(1).

Section 22-3504(1) requires full credit for time spent in custody under a sentence before it is corrected.

State v. Tipps · filed 2015-11-20(1)

When the court corrects an illegal sentence, as Tipps is requesting, the defendant shall receive full credit for the time spent in custody under the sentence prior to correction. K.S.A. 22-3504(1).

Section 22-3504(1) gives a defendant full credit for time spent in custody under an illegal sentence when that sentence is corrected.

State v. Mayes · filed 2017-02-10(1)

When the court corrects an illegal sentence, the defendant receives full credit for the time spent in custody under the sentence prior to correction. K.S.A. 22-3504(1). In this case, Mayes has already completely served his sentence, and the Department of Corrections has discharged him from postrelease supervision. Any actual controversy over Mayes' sentence has ended, and remanding for resentencing would be ineffectual for any purpose.

A postsentencing change in the law does not make a sentence illegal under § 22-3504(c)(1).

State v. Zapata-Beltran · filed 2021-10-22(c)(1)

Thus, a sentence is not rendered illegal by a postsentencing change in the law.

Section 22-3504 does not make a sentence illegal because of a later appellate decision issued after the defendant's direct appeal ends.

State v. Martell · filed 2022-04-22(c)(1) and (2)

Thus, a sentence is not rendered illegal by a postsentencing change in the law and a "change in the law" includes an appellate opinion issued after the end of a direct appeal.

Section 22-3504 judges whether a sentence is illegal under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced.

State v. Miller · filed 2021-06-11(a)

The legality of a sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced.

Section 22-3504 measures the legality of a sentence under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced.

State v. Lacey · filed 2019-10-11

As the Kansas Supreme Court held in Weber, we must use the law in effect at the time Lacey was sentenced to determine whether Lacey's sentence was illegal at sentencing.

Section 22-3504(3)'s restriction on using a change in law to correct an illegal sentence does not prevent a party from benefiting from that change while a direct appeal is pending.

State v. St. John · filed 2019-07-26(3)

The State also argues that Wetrich does not apply because of a 2017 amendment to K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3) that states: "A sentence is not an 'illegal sentence' because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced." ... Even so, St. John still receives any benefit of that change. As St. John points out, this is his direct appeal, not a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 judges a sentence’s legality under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced; a later change in law does not make a previously legal sentence illegal.

State v. Dubry · filed 2019-06-28

The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced. Therefore, a sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes.

Section 22-3504(3)'s change-in-law limit does not apply when a later decision merely interprets an existing statute.

State v. Walker · filed 2019-03-01(3)

The State argues that Wetrich does not apply because of a 2017 amendment to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(3) that states: "A sentence is not an 'illegal sentence' because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced." ... But the Wetrich court did not change the law.

Under § 22-3504, a sentence’s legality is determined by the law when it was pronounced, so a later change in law does not make a previously legal sentence illegal.

State v. Newton · filed 2019-06-07

The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced. Therefore, a sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes.

A sentence’s legality under § 22-3504 is determined by the law when it was pronounced; a later change in law cannot make a then-legal sentence illegal.

State v. Weber · filed 2019-06-14

The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced. Therefore, a sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes.

Under § 22-3504(1), a change in the law after sentencing does not make a sentence that was legal when imposed eligible for correction as illegal.

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

Subsequent changes in the law did not render McAlister's sentences illegal for purposes of a K.S.A. 22-3504(1) motion to correct an illegal sentence.

After direct appeal is final, Section 22-3504(1) measures a sentence’s legality under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced; a later change in law cannot make a once legal sentence illegal.

State v. Dawson · filed 2019-07-12(1)

After a direct appeal is final, a movant seeking the correction of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1) will have the sentence's legality determined by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced, unaffected by any subsequent change in the law.

A sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal under § 22-3504(3) because the later Wetrich decision changed the law.

State v. Henderson - Modified opinion - original opinion filed May 31, 2019 · filed 2019-07-09(3)

Based on the holdings in Murdock II, Newton, and Weber, it is clear that this court erred when we found in our original memorandum opinion that our Supreme Court's decision in Wetrich was not a change in the law within the meaning of the definition of an illegal sentence in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(3).

Section 22-3504(c) treats Dickey as an application of Apprendi rather than a change in the law, so Dickey may support an illegal-sentence claim when Apprendi applied before the sentence became final.

State v. Gales · filed 2019-10-04(c)(2)

Based on the discussion above, we find the rule set forth in Dickey is not a "change in the law" as contemplated by K.S.A. 22-3504(c) (amended 2019). Because it is not a change in the law, we will apply the rule set forth in Dickey to Gales' claim of illegal sentence here.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not allow a later change in sentencing law to make a previously imposed sentence illegal for purposes of a motion to correct it.

State v. Louis · filed 2020-04-10(c)(1)

The Wetrich test applies only to sentences finalized after Wetrich was decided or cases that were on direct appeal when Wetrich was decided.

Under § 22-3504(1), a sentence’s legality is determined when it is pronounced; later changes in the law do not make a sentence that was legal then subject to correction as illegal.

State v. Tauer · filed 2019-07-12(1)

Murdock II established the time for assessing a sentence's legality for purposes of a K.S.A. 22-3504(1) motion to correct an illegal sentence as the moment the sentence was pronounced. Then, if a sentence is legal when pronounced, subsequent changes in the law will not render it illegal and amenable to correction under K.S.A. 22-3504(1).

Section 22-3504(3) does not bar a defendant from relying on a change in sentencing law during a direct appeal.

State v. Ewing · filed 2019-08-02(3)

The State is also wrong when it claims K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(3) bars Wetrich's application to Ewing's direct appeal.

Section 22-3504 determines whether a sentence is illegal under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced; a later change in law does not make a sentence illegal.

State v. Lewis · filed 2019-11-15

We must determine the legality of Lewis' sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 by the law in effect at the time his sentence was pronounced—2007, not based on Wetrich, decided in 2018.

Section 22-3504(3) excludes a sentence challenged because of a change in law after sentencing from the definition of an illegal sentence.

Gholston v. State · filed 2017-10-13(3)

However, the statute goes on to define illegal sentence and clarifies that "[a] sentence is not an 'illegal sentence' because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced." K.S.A. 22-3504(3), as amended by L. 2017, ch. 62, § 9. Gholston's argument is based on a change in the law that occurred after his sentence was pronounced. So, insofar as he argues his sentence is an illegal sentence, it is not the type of illegal sentence that can be corrected through an untimely K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

Section 22-3504(3) applies retroactively and excludes from the definition of an illegal sentence one made invalid only by a later change in the law.

State v. Dawson · filed 2017-12-08(3)

Under the directive in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3), Dawson's sentence was legal when it was pronounced, and it was not rendered illegal by the subsequent change in the law.

A sentence that was illegal when imposed is not excluded from correction under § 22-3504(3) merely because later decisions supplied a method for identifying the error.

State v. Smith · filed 2018-05-18(3)

The State's argument is flawed. Unlike Dawson, who received a legal sentence prior to Apprendi, Smith's post-Apprendi sentence was illegal at the time it was imposed because it did not conform to the applicable statutory provision with respect to the punishment authorized. As a result, Smith did not need to rely on a change in the law after sentencing to make his sentence illegal. The subsequent holdings in Descamps and Dickey I did not change the law with respect to Smith's already illegal sentence; instead, they simply provided a method for evaluating whether a sentencing court violates Apprendi in determining a defendant's criminal history score.

Section 22-3504 measures a sentence’s legality under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced, so a later change in law cannot make a lawful sentence illegal.

State v. Murdock · filed 2019-04-19

Today, we clearly state what we gestured toward in Lee: the legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced. The legality of a sentence is fixed at a discrete moment in time—the moment the sentence was pronounced.

Section 22-3504 treats a Kansas appellate opinion issued after sentencing as a change in law and assesses the sentence under the law in effect when it was pronounced.

State v. Tapscott · filed 2019-08-09(c)(1)-(2)

Given Senate Bill 18, which applies retroactively, we need not grapple with the implications of Murdock II on the retroactivity of Wetrich because the Legislature has answered the question for us: Wetrich is a "change in the law" because it is undoubtedly "an opinion by an appellate court of the state of Kansas."

A later change in law does not make a sentence illegal under § 22-3504 if it was lawful when pronounced.

State v. Tolen · filed 2019-08-16

But under Murdock II, this subsequent change in the law does not render Tolen's sentence illegal.

Section 22-3504(1) measures a sentence’s legality under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced; a later change in the law cannot make an originally legal sentence illegal.

State v. Sartin · filed 2019-08-16(1)

After Wetrich, however, we clarified that the determination of the legality of a sentence for K.S.A. 22-3504(1) purposes is to be based on the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced, e.g., the sentence conformed with the statutory provisions then in effect. State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585, 591-92, 439 P.3d 307 (2019) (Murdock II). If the sentence was legal when originally imposed, a subsequent change in the law cannot transform a legal sentence into an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 measures a sentence’s legality under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced; a later change in law does not make it illegal.

State v. Baert · filed 2019-09-20(c)(1)

The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced.

Section 22-3504 measures the legality of a sentence when it is pronounced; a later change in law does not make a previously legal sentence illegal.

State v. Bryant · filed 2019-11-27

Bryant's first argument is not that his sentence was illegal at the time it was imposed. Rather, he argues that subsequent changes in the law have rendered his sentence illegal. The illegal sentence statute itself and recent decisions from this court foreclose his challenge.

Section 22-3504 does not make a sentence illegal because of a later change in the law if the sentence was legal when pronounced.

– State v. Williams – · filed 2020-01-24(1)

Thus, we agree with the State that Murdock II and Weber preclude Williams from arguing that he received an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504 does not provide relief through a motion to correct an illegal sentence when the sentence was legal when pronounced, even if the law later changes.

State v. Broxton · filed 2020-04-17

The vehicle of a motion to correct an illegal sentence is unavailable to him because his sentence was legal when pronounced.

Section 22-3504 does not permit correction of a sentence based on a change in the law after the sentence was pronounced.

State v. Bradford · filed 2020-07-02

First, as held in State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585, 591, 439 P.3d 307 (2019) (Murdock II), a sentence is not an "illegal sentence" under K.S.A. 22-3504 because of a change in the law after the district court imposes the sentence.

A sentence does not become illegal under § 22-3504 because the law changes after it is pronounced; its legality is determined under the law in effect at sentencing.

State v. Louis · filed 2020-10-23(c)(1)

Moreover, a sentence is not illegal because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1); see also Murdock II, 309 Kan. at 590 ("K.S.A. 22-3504 does not say a sentence may become illegal at any time.").

Section 22-3504(c)(1) fixes the legality of a sentence under the law in effect when it was pronounced, so a later change in law does not make the sentence illegal.

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

Because the legality of a sentence is controlled by the law in effect when it was pronounced, McCullough may not receive the benefit of Boettger.

A sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal under § 22-3504 because of a later change in the law.

State v. Clark · filed 2020-04-17(c)

As such, our Legislature has clearly indicated a sentence that is legal when pronounced does not become illegal due to a change in the law.

The 2019 amendment limiting correction of an illegal sentence to the period when the defendant is serving it applies only if the defendant had not filed a motion before the amendment took effect.

State v. Roat · filed 2020-06-19(a), (d)

This amendment relates to statutory authority to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence; it does not directly invoke or demonstrate mootness of motions that were filed before the amendment. Even if the amendment applies retroactively, it applies only to situations in which the defendant has not yet filed a motion before the operative date of the amendment.

Section 22-3504 measures the legality of a sentence under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced.

State v. Major · filed 2020-08-21

"[T]he legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced." State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585, 591, 439 P.3d 307 (2019). ... So we will apply K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6811 that was in effect at the time Major was sentenced in September 2017.

An appellate decision issued after a defendant’s direct appeal concludes is a change in the law that cannot support a motion to correct a sentence that was lawful when imposed.

State v. Adams · filed 2020-10-02(c)(2)

K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(2) is plain and unambiguous; a "'[c]hange in the law' means a statutory change or an opinion by an appellate court of the state of Kansas, unless the opinion is issued while the sentence is pending an appeal from the judgment of conviction." (Emphasis added.) Based on this plain language, Murdock I is a change in the law as applied to Adams because the decision in Murdock I was issued after the conclusion of Adams' direct appeal.

A later Kansas appellate decision does not make a sentence illegal under § 22-3504 when the decision came after sentencing and no direct appeal was pending.

State v. Miller · filed 2020-11-06(c)(1)-(2)

Thus, Boettger is a subsequent change in the law. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3504(c)(2). Because the legality of a sentence is controlled by the law in effect when it was pronounced, Miller cannot receive the benefit of Boettger.

Section 22-3504 measures a sentence's legality under the law in effect when it was imposed; a later change in law applies if the direct appeal is still pending.

State v. Barber · filed 2021-04-23

More recently in Murdock II, our Supreme Court underscored that "the legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced." 309 Kan. at 591. The Murdock II court explained that "a sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes." 309 Kan. 585, Syl. ¶ 1. The only exception to this rule is when a change in the law occurs while a direct appeal is pending, because a sentence is not final until the direct appeal is completed. 309 Kan. at 591. ... Nor does he allege that a beneficial change in the law occurred while his case was pending on direct appeal.

Section 22-3504 measures the legality of a sentence under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced.

State v. Clark · filed 2021-05-14

The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced.

A change in the law after the time for direct appeal expires does not make a sentence illegal under Section 22-3504 or entitle a defendant to recalculate a criminal history score after probation revocation.

State v. Resto-Isaac · filed 2021-06-11(c)(1)-(2)

Notwithstanding this abandonment, we note that we also lack jurisdiction to consider Resto-Isaac's criminal history challenge under K.S.A. 22-3504. In short, because the law in effect when the district court initially sentences a defendant to probation and imposes the defendant's original underlying sentence controls a defendant's criminal history score in that criminal case, a defendant is not entitled to recalculation of his or her criminal history score based on a change in the law that occurs after the district court initially sentenced him or her to probation and imposed his or her original underlying sentence. This conclusion is consistent with the plain language of K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1)-(2), which provides that a defendant's sentence is not rendered illegal by a change of law that occurs after a defendant's time to directly appeal has expired.

Section 22-3504 does not make a sentence illegal because of a change in law after the sentence was pronounced and the direct appeal concluded.

State v. Luton · filed 2021-08-13(c)

A change in the law after the sentence is pronounced and after any direct appeal is concluded does not render that sentence illegal.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not make a sentence illegal because the law changed after pronouncement and completion of direct appeal.

State v. Peyton · filed 2021-09-10(c)(1)

A change in the law after the sentence is pronounced and after any direct appeal is concluded does not render that sentence illegal.

The legality of a sentence under § 22-3504 is fixed by the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced, and later changes in law do not make a final sentence illegal.

State v. Moore · filed 2022-03-18

The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time of the sentence's pronouncement—it is fixed at that discrete moment in time. Neither party may avail itself of later changes in the law once the sentence is final.

Section 22-3504(c)(2) does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence to rely on a change in law that occurred after sentencing and the conclusion of direct appeal.

State v. Allen · filed 2021-08-27(c)(2)

The plain, unambiguous language from the Murdock II court is that Allen is stuck with the law in effect at the time of his sentencing on September 19, 2008. As a result, he may not avail himself of the benefit of Murdock I.

Section 22-3504(a) does not allow correction based on a later change in law when the sentence was legal under the law in effect when pronounced.

State v. Johnson · filed 2021-12-23(a)

The legality of a sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced. A sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes.

Section 22-3504(c) bars correction of a sentence based on a later appellate change in law unless the change occurs while the defendant’s direct appeal is pending.

State v. Brown · filed 2022-01-07(c)

In that respect, the result we and the other panels have reached conforms to the general rule in K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c), precluding relief for an illegal sentence if the defendant's claim is based on an appellate court decision that changes the law after the district court has imposed sentence. The statute includes a limited exception if the change occurs during the pendency of a defendant's direct appeal of the conviction resulting in the sentence.

Under K.S.A. 22-3504, the legality of a sentence is determined by the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced.

State v. Martinez-Guerrero · filed 2022-01-07

"The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced [and] is fixed at a discrete moment in time—the moment the sentence was pronounced."