Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3504

In a proceeding arising from a motion to correct an illegal sentence, § 22-3504(c)(1) fixes the sentence’s legality under the law in effect at the original sentencing, even if resentencing occurs on remand.

State v. Jacobson · filed 2024-07-26(c)(1)

The statutory language does not differentiate between original sentencing and resentencing. See K.S.A. 22-3504. Instead, it merely provides a sentence's legality is fixed at a discrete moment when it is pronounced. K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1).

A motion to correct an illegal sentence assesses legality under the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced; a later change in the comparability test does not make the sentence illegal.

State v. Dunerway · filed 2024-08-16

Kansas courts have consistently held that the legality of a sentence is determined from the law in effect when the sentence was pronounced. See State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585, 591-92, 439 P.3d 307 (2019); see also State v. Newton, 309 Kan. 1070, 1073-74, 442 P.3d 489 (2019) (defendant sentenced pre-Wetrich cannot rely on Wetrich in motion to correct an illegal sentence). Thus, the Wetrich framework does not apply.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not treat a sentence as illegal because the law changed after the sentence was pronounced.

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

Likewise, Copeland's pro se supplemental argument for an illegal sentence really should be considered under K.S.A. 22-3504, governing correction of sentences. But a sentence is not illegal "because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced." K.S.A. 22- 3504(c)(1). That statutory limitation undercuts Copeland's argument.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence is governed by the law in effect at sentencing; a change in law while the motion is pending does not benefit the movant.

State v. Barber · filed 2025-08-29

Here, Barber challenged the legality of his sentence through a motion to correct illegal sentence, so he is not entitled to any benefit of a change in the law while his motion was pending.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not make a sentence illegal because the law changes after the sentence is pronounced.

Anderson v. State · filed 2025-10-03(c)(1)

As noted above, a sentence does not become illegal "because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced." K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1). Here, Hopkins and Ervin's changes to the law do not make Anderson's sentence illegal.

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not make a final sentence illegal because of a change in law announced after the direct appeal ended.

State v. Jones · filed 2026-05-29(c)(1)

But Jones is not entitled to receive relief under Hopkins because his sentence became final and the mandate was issued in his direct appeal before the opinion in Hopkins was released. As Jones concedes in his motion for summary disposition, a sentence is not illegal "because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced." K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not make a sentence illegal because the law changed after the sentence was pronounced.

State v. Molleker · filed 2026-05-08(c)(1)

Notably, it does not render a term of punishment illegal if a district court declines to apply a change in the law that occurred after a defendant's sentence was pronounced. K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1). ... The changes articulated in Hopkins and Ervin do not render Molleker's sentence illegal.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot rely on a change in the law after sentencing if the sentence was legal when pronounced.

State v. Powell · filed 2021-08-20

The Supreme Court decided Wetrich after Powell was sentenced; therefore, Wetrich represents a subsequent change in the law. As our Supreme Court stated in Murdock II: "[A] pronounced sentence is either legal or illegal according to then-existing law. Therefore, for purposes of a motion to correct an illegal sentence, neither party can avail itself of subsequent changes in the law." 309 Kan. at 591.

Section 22-3504(c)(2) allows a later change in law to affect a sentence that was legal when imposed only if the change occurs while an appeal from the judgment of conviction is pending.

State v. Oliver · filed 2022-02-04(c)(2)

Thus, a sentence that is legal when imposed does not become illegal because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced unless the change in the law occurs "while the sentence is pending an appeal from the judgment of conviction." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(2).

Section 22-3504(c)(1) does not make a final sentence illegal because of a later change in the law.

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

Since Boettger's change of the law occurred after Penn's sentence was pronounced and became final, we find that Penn's sentence is legal.

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

Brooks v. State · filed 2022-05-06(c)(1)

A sentence does not become illegal because of a change in the law that occurs after sentencing, and a party may only benefit from a change in the law during the pendency of a direct appeal.

The legality of a sentence on a motion to correct an illegal sentence is governed by the law in effect when the sentence was imposed.

State v. Green · filed 2022-10-07(c)(1)

The legality of a sentence for purposes of a motion to correct an illegal sentence is governed by the law in effect when the district court imposes the sentence.

Section 22-3504 permits a court correcting an illegal controlling sentence to resentence on all counts, including by increasing the base sentence.

State v. Baldwin · filed 1997-06-20

K.S.A. 22-3504 enables a court to correct an illegal sentence at any time. ... Baldwin reasons, therefore, that the district court was without authority to correct anything else in the sentence and, thus, could not alter the separate sentences imposed for each count. ... Based on the reasoning in Woodbury, we conclude the district court did not err in resentencing Baldwin.

Section 22-3504(1) permits correction of an illegal sentence but does not authorize a collateral attack seeking reversal of the underlying conviction.

State v. Nash · filed 2006-04-28(1)

The defendant herein is seeking reversal of his conviction of aggravated robbery as opposed to correction of the sentence imposed on the conviction. In essence, the defendant is seeking to use the correction of an illegal sentence statute as the vehicle for a collateral attack on a conviction. Such relief is not available under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504 allows correction of an illegal sentence but does not permit a court to change lawful sentences on other counts during resentencing.

State v. Masterson · filed 2020-08-14(a)

Because Masterson's sentences were legal sentences, the court could not later change them by departing from the standard guideline sentences previously imposed.

Section 22-3504(1) gives credit for time spent in custody before a sentence is corrected; when imprisonment has ended and correction would not affect postrelease supervision, that remedy provides no effective relief.

State v. Barnes · filed 2018-12-14(1)

But the remedy for a corrected sentence is "full credit for time spent in custody under the sentence prior to the correction." K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(1). Barnes has already finished the custodial term of imprisonment, so there's no additional custodial time to give him credit against. Finding now that his original sentence should have been shorter would not affect the postrelease-supervision portion of his sentence, which is all that's left.

An appeal from the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence is moot when the defendant has completed the sentence and postrelease supervision and correction could provide no effective relief.

State v. Lawrence · filed 2015-11-20(1)

When the court corrects an illegal sentence, as Lawrence 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). Here, Lawrence already had completely served his sentence and was discharged from postrelease supervision before the district court ruled on his motion. Any actual controversy over Lawrence's sentence has ended and the only judgment that could be entered would be ineffectual for any purpose. Thus, Lawrence's appeal from the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence is rendered moot.

A defendant receives full credit for time served when an illegal sentence is corrected; a motion to correct is moot once the sentence and postrelease supervision have been completed and no effective relief remains.

State v. Fields · filed 2015-11-25(1)

When the court corrects an illegal sentence, as Fields 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). Here, Fields already had completely served her sentence and was discharged from postrelease supervision before the district court ruled on her motion. Any actual controversy over Fields' sentence has ended and the only judgment that could be entered would be ineffectual for any purpose. Thus, Fields' appeal from the denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence is rendered moot.

A challenge to an illegal prison sentence under § 22-3504(1) is moot after the prison term has been served if correction would not affect mandatory postrelease supervision.

State v. Gregory · filed 2017-03-24(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, Gregory has already completely served his sentence and is simply serving his period of postrelease supervision. Any actual controversy over Gregory's sentence has ended, and remanding for resentencing would be ineffectual for any purpose. This is true even though Gregory is still on postrelease supervision.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence under § 22-3504 cannot relitigate an issue already decided on direct appeal.

State v. Reyna · filed 2016-12-09

The key point, though, is that in his direct appeal, Reyna had his chance to litigate the alleged error in the charging documents; he can't use an illegal-sentence motion to do so again.

A motion under § 22-3504 cannot relitigate a sentencing issue previously decided against the defendant.

State v. Martin · filed 2012-06-29

A motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot be used as a vehicle to “breathe new hfe” into an appellate issue previously determined against the defendant. ... Martin’s current claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Section 22-3504(1) cannot be used to relitigate a claim already decided against the movant.

State v. Robertson · filed 2013-11-08(1)

We will not permit his new motion to correct an illegal sentence to be used as a vehicle to “breathe new life” into an issue previously determined against Robertson on multiple occasions.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence under § 22-3504 cannot relitigate a sentencing claim already decided on appeal; res judicata bars the repeated claim.

State v. Newson · filed 2015-11-20(1)

Here, the record is clear that Newson is raising the same sentencing claim that he has unsuccessfully raised before, including his claim that his sentence should have been converted under the new sentencing guidelines. Because Newson continues to claim his sentence is illegal, this issue is barred by res judicata.

Section 22-3504(1) allows a claim that a sentence is illegal despite failure to raise the claim on direct appeal when the claim has not previously been decided on the merits.

State v. Martin · filed 2016-03-04(1)

Based on the analysis in Neal and Angelo and because a broad application of res judicata would contravene the clear directive of K.S.A. 22-3504(1), we decline to apply the doctrine of res judicata or waiver to bar Martin's claim of an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a claim that a sentence is illegal even if the defendant could have raised it on direct appeal, unless the claim was previously decided on its merits.

State v. Smith · filed 2016-04-08(1)

Based on the analysis in Neal and Angelo and because a broad application of res judicata would contravene the clear directive of K.S.A. 22-3504(1), we decline to apply the doctrine of res judicata or waiver to bar Smith's claim of an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) allows a defendant to challenge an illegal sentence after it becomes final when the claim has not previously been decided on its merits; failure to raise the claim on direct appeal does not bar it.

State v. Olivas · filed 2016-04-08(1)

The general waiver rule is inapplicable for motions to correct an illegal sentence where the issue presented has not been previously litigated.

Section 22-3504(1) allows a defendant to challenge an illegal sentence based on an erroneous criminal history score despite res judicata.

State v. Blake · filed 2016-05-13(1)

As a result, because Blake's criminal history score challenge fits within the parameters of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1), his challenge is not barred by res judicata.

A motion under § 22-3504(1) to correct an illegal sentence based on a criminal-history classification error is not barred by res judicata merely because the error could have been raised on direct appeal.

State v. Jones · filed 2016-07-08(1)

Furthermore, we do not find that Jones' motion to correct illegal sentence in that case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Instead, we find the rationale in State v. Martin, 52 Kan. App. 2d 474, 369 P.3d 959 (2016), petition for rev. filed May 5, 2016, to be persuasive. ... Moreover, the court found in Martin that applying the doctrine of res judicata to bar challenges of an illegal sentence merely because they could have been brought in a direct appeal would undermine the clear legislative directive in K.S.A. 22-3504(1) that the courts may correct an illegal sentence at any time. 52 Kan. App. 2d at 481.

A new claim that would make a sentence illegal if true is not barred by res judicata when it has not previously been decided on the merits.

State v. Wright · filed 2017-04-07(1)

Wright undeniably raises a new issue in his current motion to correct an illegal sentence. His claim, if true, would render his sentence illegal. ... This issue has not been previously addressed on its merits. Therefore, we find res judicata does not apply to bar Wright's current claim.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a defendant to relitigate an illegal-sentence issue already decided or one that could have been raised in an earlier motion.

State v. Neal · filed 2019-11-01(1)

The Kansas Supreme Court has made it clear that K.S.A. 22-3504(1) does not allow a defendant to "'breathe new life' into an appellate issue previously determined against the defendant" by repeatedly raising the same issue in later motions. ... That is the case here.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence under § 22-3504 is subject to res judicata when it repeats an issue previously raised.

Frost v. State · filed 2020-05-08

But the doctrine of res judicata still applies. ... Here, Frost has tried to resurrect an issue he has already raised. Frost's illegal sentence claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence under § 22-3504 may be summarily denied when it raises issues already decided in prior appeals.

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

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in summarily denying Loggins' most recent motion to correct an illegal sentence. Each of the issues that Loggins seeks to assert now have previously been decided by both the district court and this court. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in summarily denying Loggins' fourth motion to correct illegal sentence or in denying his motion to reconsider.

Section 22-3504 permits a later challenge to an illegal sentence when the claim could have been raised in an earlier appeal but has not been decided on the merits.

State v. Warui · filed 2021-11-05(a)

This court applies res judicata when the "motions to correct an illegal sentence involve claims that previously were resolved on the merits or claims that would not render a sentence illegal, even if true." Martin, 52 Kan. App. 2d at 481. That is not the case here. This court has never addressed Warui's claim that his 2012 Florida battery conviction should not be classified as a person offense. While Warui could have brought this claim with his prior appeal—res judicata does not require it.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot relitigate sentencing issues already decided on appeal; res judicata bars those issues in a later motion.

State v. Tyler · filed 2022-02-18

Having reviewed Tyler's numerous prior appeals related to his sentencing, it is clear that his current motion is yet another attempt to relitigate issues already decided against him. Where an appeal is taken from a conviction or sentence imposed, the judgment of the appellate court is res judicata as to all issues actually raised. Further, issues that could have been raised are deemed waived. State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 482, 437 P.3d 953 (2019) (citing State v. Kingsley, 299 Kan. 896, 901, 326 P.3d 1083 [2014]). See also State v. Martin, 294 Kan. 638, 640-41, 279 P.3d 704 (2012) (issues raised and decided in prior K.S.A. 60-1507 motions or motions to correct an illegal sentence are res judicata and cannot be raised in subsequent motions). Accordingly, because the Kansas Supreme Court and numerous panels of this court have already considered and rejected Tyler's challenges to his enhanced sentencing under the Habitual Criminal Act, we conclude that the district court did not err in summarily dismissing Tyler's motion to correct illegal sentence.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence is not successive when it challenges a criminal-history classification that was not raised in earlier appeals.

State v. Smith · filed 2024-04-19

This appeal is not based on a successive motion merely seeking "'a "second bite" at the illegal sentence apple'" as it relates to Smith's 1988 attempted aggravated burglary conviction. See Moncla, 317 Kan. at 417.

Section 22-3504 does not require courts to reconsider arguments rejected on the merits in an earlier motion to correct an illegal sentence.

State v. Powell · filed 2024-07-05

Regardless of the label applied to the rule, the holding in Moncla plainly prevents a defendant from endlessly filing motions to correct an illegal sentence with the expectation and, indeed, the requirement that the courts consider the merits of the same arguments over and over again. A contrary rule would turn what should be no more than a defendant's Sisyphean endeavor into a material drain of judicial resources. The district court properly denied Powell's second motion to correct an illegal sentence on preclusion grounds.

A successive motion to correct an illegal sentence is barred by res judicata when it repeats a claim previously resolved in a final judgment on the merits.

Greene v. State · filed 2024-11-22

Greene is merely seeking "'a "second bite" at the illegal sentence apple,'" and his claim is dismissed based on our longstanding preclusionary rules. See Moncla, 317 Kan. at 417. The doctrine of res judicata bars Greene's successive claim.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence is barred by res judicata when it repeats a jurisdictional challenge previously raised and decided, even though jurisdiction may generally be raised at any time.

State v. Reynolds · filed 2025-02-21

And while jurisdiction may be raised at any time, the same jurisdictional issue cannot be raised many times. Here, a review of the record reveals that Reynolds raised the issue—presented in his current motion to correct an illegal sentence—several times before on appeal in multiple different ways. Accordingly, we conclude that the doctrine of res judicata bars his current motion.

Section 22-3504 permits successive motions to correct an illegal sentence, but res judicata bars relitigation of the same sentencing claim after a final decision on the merits.

State v. Green · filed 2026-04-24

In response to the State's res judicata argument, Green relies on State v. Hayes, 312 Kan. 865, 867, 481 P.3d 1205 (2021), in which the court held that "the plain language of K.S.A. 22-3504, which allows correction of an illegal sentence 'at any time,' operates as a legislative override of traditional principles of waiver, abandonment, and res judicata." But Green is misapplying the holding in Hayes. ... Here, Green has filed a total of seven motions to correct illegal sentence attacking the same issue—arguing that his sentence is illegal because he should not be required to serve postrelease supervision. And each of the sub-issues he has raised related to that overarching argument have been ruled on by a court in his case, on the merits. ... We apply the doctrine here because Green's claims have been repeatedly considered and denied on the merits.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to relitigate an argument previously raised and decided.

State v. Tiger · filed 2025-12-12(a)

A motion to correct an illegal sentence may not be used by an appellant to breathe new life into an argument previously raised and ruled on.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a court to consider an illegal-sentence claim at any time despite res judicata.

State v. Mullens · filed 2021-08-20(1)

Our Supreme Court has determined that the language of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(1)—which allows the court to "correct an illegal sentence at any time"—overrides any concerns about res judicata. State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217, 222, 380 P.3d 230 (2016). We therefore consider the merits of Mullens' argument.

Section 22-3504(a) permits an illegal sentence challenge at any time while the defendant is serving the sentence, so res judicata bars a claim only if it was previously raised and addressed.

State v. Perales · filed 2023-01-27(a)

But on a motion to correct illegal sentence that can be made at any time, res judicata does not apply to bar a claim unless the claim has been raised and addressed before; it does not matter that the claim could have been raised in prior proceedings.

A motion to correct an illegal sentence may be filed at any time; res judicata does not bar a challenge to a prior conviction's classification merely because it could have been raised on direct appeal.

State v. Buoy · filed 2016-04-15(1)

Moreover, in State v. Martin, 52 Kan. App. 2d ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 113,189, filed March 4, 2016), slip op. at 12-13, this court found that applying the doctrine of res judicata in cases such as this merely because they could have been brought in a direct appeal would undermine the clear legislative directive in K.S.A. 22-3504(1) that a motion to correct illegal sentence may be filed at any time.

A defendant who stipulated to criminal history at sentencing cannot obtain correction of the resulting alleged illegal sentence under § 22-3504 because the error was invited and the objection waived.

State v. McBride · filed 1996-12-27

It is true that an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time; however, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504, the law is well settled that one who, by his or her own acts, invites error cannot then complain or take advantage of it on appeal. State v. Thomas, 220 Kan. 104, 106, 551 P.2d 873 (1976). McBride stipulated to his criminal history during sentencing; he cannot now complain that it was incorrect. Such argument has been waived.

A failure to object to a prior conviction’s classification in the criminal history report does not waive a later motion under § 22-3504(1) to correct the resulting illegal sentence.

State v. Thomas · filed 2016-09-30(1)

Thomas did not waive his right to obtain relief from an illegal sentence or invite error when his attorney responded no when asked by the district court whether the attorney controverted any criminal history in Thomas' PSI report.

A defendant may challenge an illegal sentence under § 22-3504 even if the defendant requested that sentence; the invited error doctrine does not bar the challenge.

State v. Smith · filed 2025-01-31

Although the State is correct that Smith did just that, a defendant cannot agree to an illegal sentence. See State v. Hankins, 304 Kan. 226, 231, 372 P.3d 1124 (2016). Accordingly, the invited error doctrine does not apply.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence to collaterally attack a conviction or mount an untimely constitutional challenge to the law governing the prosecution.

State v. Williams · filed 2007-03-16(1)

We have declared that K.S.A. 22-3504 is not a vehicle for a collateral attack on a conviction. ... Similarly, that remedy is unavailable to mount an untimely constitutional challenge to the Juvenile Offenders Code.

Section 22-3504 does not allow a motion to correct an illegal sentence to serve as a substitute for a direct appeal of ordinary trial errors.

State v. McCarley · filed 2007-09-19(1)

A motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 is not a substitute for a direct appeal involving mere trial errors.

Section 22-3504(1) does not permit a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge a conviction based on an alleged violation of the competency-to-stand-trial statute.

State v. Donaldson · filed 2015-09-11(1)

Therefore, pursuant to Ford, Donaldson may not utilize a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge the trial court's alleged failure to comply with K.S.A. 22-3302.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of a sentence imposed without jurisdiction, contrary to law, or with materially ambiguous terms; it cannot be used to challenge the validity of a plea or conviction based on incompetence.

State v. Iserhardt · filed 2015-10-16

Iserhardt's appeal fails because his argument goes to the validity of his plea and the resulting conviction—not the legality of his sentence. A motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 lies when the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction, the sentence failed to conform to the law, or the sentence was in some material way ambiguous as to its terms.

Section 22-3504 permits correction of a sentence but cannot be used to withdraw a guilty plea or avoid the time limit for a plea-withdrawal motion.

State v. Nelson · filed 2015-12-11

A motion to correct an illegal sentence "is solely a vehicle to correct a sentence. It is not a mechanism to reverse a conviction. [Citations omitted.]" Gilbert, 299 Kan. at 801. Nelson cannot seek to withdraw his guilty plea postsentencing or to avoid the time limitation on such motions by filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 permits an appellate court to consider a renewed motion to correct an illegal sentence after the district court declines to rule on it.

State v. Fairchild · filed 2016-04-15

The district court declined to rule on the motion. Fairchild now renews his motion to correct illegal sentence in our court, and we may consider it. See K.S.A. 22-3504; State v. Neal, 292 Kan. 625, 631, 258 P.3d 365 (2011).

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

State v. Hankins · filed 2016-05-13(1)

But in State v. Martin, No. 113,189, 2016 WL 852130, at *7, this court concluded that "when a constitutional challenge results in the determination that the defendant's criminal history score is incorrect, the resulting sentence does not conform to the statutory provision in the term of the punishment authorized and, consequently, is an illegal sentence." We hold with Martin that Hankins' motion to correct an illegal sentence is the proper vehicle to contest his sentence.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a motion to correct a sentence based on the misclassification of a prior offense in the criminal history score.

State v. McClough · filed 2016-07-15(1)

McClough's claim based on Dickey is not procedurally barred under Warrior and is within the scope of relief afforded by K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge use of a prior uncounseled conviction when that use allegedly elevated a misdemeanor offense to a felony.

State v. Turner · filed 2016-09-16(1)

But Turner alleges the municipal court conviction produced an erroneous crime severity level, and he would have been convicted of a misdemeanor offense but for the improper consideration of his uncounseled municipal court conviction. We conclude that Turner's motion to correct an illegal sentence is an appropriate procedural vehicle to assert this challenge.

Section 22-3504(1) permits a motion to correct a sentence based on erroneous criminal-history classification when a constitutional issue is subsidiary to the statutory classification question.

State v. Nelson · filed 2016-11-18(1)

The application of Apprendi, therefore, amounted to a subsidiary constitutional issue that did not preclude review under K.S.A. 22-3504(1). ... In short, Dickey II controls and largely disposes of this case. The district court erred in denying Nelson's motions to correct illegal sentences.

Section 22-3504(1) permits correction of an illegal sentence but does not provide a way to attack a conviction or remedy a claimed due process violation.

State v. Cotton · filed 2017-04-14(1)

The eight grounds Cotton argues in his motion plainly attack his convictions, not his sentence. So a motion to correct an illegal sentence is the wrong vehicle for such an attack. Additionally, Cotton claims the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose his sentence because it was rendered in violation of due process. But this court has held that a claim of a due process violation cannot be remedied in a motion to correct illegal sentence.

Section 22-3504 permits a challenge to the statutory classification of a prior conviction even when the claim has constitutional implications.

State v. Latham · filed 2017-06-09

Next, the district court was incorrect to conclude that Latham's claim involved a constitutional challenge that could not be considered on a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion. Although the issues raised in Latham's motion have constitutional implications, whether a prior crime was properly classified is purely a matter of statutory law.

Section 22-3504(1) cannot be used to challenge a juvenile court referral for adult prosecution because a motion to correct an illegal sentence does not reach predicate proceedings leading to the sentence.

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

Accordingly, Bennett cannot use K.S.A. 22-3504(1) as a procedural vehicle to dispute his referral from juvenile court for prosecution in district court.

Section 22-3504 allows a court to consider an illegal-sentence claim raised for the first time on appeal from a probation revocation while the defendant is still serving the sentence.

State v. Henderson · filed 2019-05-31(a)

So because of the statutory mandate that the court may correct an illegal sentence at any time the defendant is still serving the sentence, we will address Henderson's claim for the first time on appeal from his probation revocation.

Section 22-3504 permits a court to correct an illegal sentence at any time, including on its own initiative.

State v. Ballou · filed 2019-09-06

This court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may do so sua sponte.

An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time, even when the sentencing error was not raised in the district court.

State v. Becker · filed 2020-02-28(1)

Though the issue of lifetime postrelease supervision was not raised below, if the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision results in an illegal sentence, that error can be corrected at any time. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504.

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

State v. White · filed 2020-03-27

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

Section 22-3504 permits an illegal sentence claim to be raised for the first time on appeal while the defendant is serving the sentence.

State v. Leach · filed 2026-06-12

Although Leach challenges his criminal history score for the first time on appeal, an illegal sentence claim can be newly raised on appeal. K.S.A. 22-3504 (courts can correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving the sentence); State v. Hambright, 310 Kan. 408, 411, 447 P.3d 972 (2019).

A motion to correct an illegal sentence may be treated as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion so the court can reach its merits.

State v. Singleton · filed 2005-01-21(1)

Here, we have a motion to correct an illegal sentence and, under Duke, we are obligated, until otherwise instructed, to treat the present motion as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion and address the merits of tire motion rather than dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

A sentencing court’s failure to consider a defendant’s finances on the record when assessing BIDS fees does not make the sentence illegal under § 22-3504 because the assessment is not part of the sentence.

State v. Davis · filed 2006-12-08

"Second, a sentencing court's failure to include such explicit consideration of the defendant's financial circumstances in the record does not render the sentence associated with the resulting assessment `illegal,' as that term is used in K.S.A. 22-3504. ... Thus, while the sentencing court's failure to make on-the-record findings regarding Davis' fees does not affect the legitimacy of Davis' conviction or sentence, it nevertheless is cause for reversing the court's BIDS assessment.

A sentencing court’s failure to make explicit findings about a defendant’s ability to pay BIDS fees does not make the associated sentence illegal under § 22-3504.

State v. Davis · filed 2007-03-23

“Second, a sentencing court’s failure to include such explicit consideration of the defendant’s financial circumstances in the record does not render the sentence associated with the resulting assessment ‘illegal,’ as that term is used in K.S.A. 22-3504. ... Thus, while the sentencing court’s failure to make on-the-record findings regarding Davis’ fees does not affect the legitimacy of Davis’ conviction or sentence, it nevertheless is cause for reversing the court’s BIDS assessment.

Section 22-3504 does not provide relief when garnishment collects outstanding court costs and fees without modifying the criminal sentence.

State v. Willis · filed 2021-06-04(c)(1)

Accordingly, these cases demonstrate that Willis is precluded from relief because the district court did not illegally modify his sentence when it ordered that his inmate account be garnished to satisfy his outstanding costs and fees.

Section 22-3504 does not permit correction at any time of an improper assessment of BIDS attorney fees because the fee assessment is not part of the sentence.

State v. Ehrlich · filed 2008-08-08

In addition, the district court’s failure to properly assess BIDS fees does not constitute an illegal sentence which can be corrected at any time pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504; furthermore, the assessment of attorney fees is not part of the sentence.

An inadequate inquiry into a defendant's ability to pay BIDS attorney fees does not make the sentence illegal under § 22-3504.

State v. Turner · filed 2026-06-05

We agree with Turner that the district court's brief inquiry failed to meet the requirements imposed in Robinson. Yet this does not mean that Turner got an "illegal sentence," as that term is used in K.S.A. 22-3504.

Section 22-3504(a) permits a challenge to a current sentence based on how a prior adjudication was scored, even when that adjudication resulted from a no-contest plea.

State v. Howell · filed 2022-09-02(a)

And Kansas law explicitly allows such challenges, with no restrictions against convictions that result from a plea. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-6810(d)(9); K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(a). Howell's past criminal-threat plea did not waive his current sentencing challenge.

Section 22-3504(a) allows a court to correct an illegal sentence only while the defendant is serving that sentence.

State v. Swindell · filed 2021-07-23(a)

Although Kansas statutes generally permit a defendant to file a motion to correct illegal sentence at any time, a Kansas court is only given authority to correct an illegal sentence "while the defendant is serving such sentence." See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(a).

Section 22-3504(a) permits correction of an illegal sentence while the defendant is serving it.

State v. Brown · filed 2021-09-10(a)

K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(a) now reads: "(a) The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence." ... In this case, Brown properly raised his criminal history challenge while he was serving his sentence.

Section 22-3504(a) allows a defendant serving a sentence to raise an illegal-sentence claim for the first time on appeal.

State v. Mahoney · filed 2021-11-24(a)

Even so, an illegal sentence can be corrected "at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(a). As a result, because Mahoney is still serving his sentence in this case, his contention that his sentence was illegal may be considered for the first time on appeal.

Section 22-3504(a) allows a challenge to an illegal sentence only while the defendant is serving that sentence.

State v. Perales · filed 2024-09-13(a)

Likewise, his claim regarding the illegality of the felony designation of the second count after his plea to the first count does not present an actionable basis for appeal now that he has served the complete corresponding sentence. See K.S.A. 22- 3504(a).

Section 22-3504(a) allows correction of an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving it, even if the issue was not raised at sentencing or on direct appeal.

State v. Fisher · filed 2024-12-13(a)

Fisher is correct that courts can correct an illegal sentence at any time and, thus, his motion was not procedurally barred.

Section 22-3504(a) permits correction of an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving it, even when the sentence is presumptive.

State v. Randall · filed 2025-04-25(a)

K.S.A. 21-6820(c)(1) disallows an appeal of a presumptive felony sentence, such as the sentence Randall received here. But an illegal sentence can be corrected "at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence." K.S.A. 22-3504(a).

Section 22-3504(a) allows an illegal sentence claim to be raised at any time while the defendant is serving the sentence, even if the claim was not raised in district court.

State v. Lipp · filed 2024-11-08(a)

While he admits he did not raise this issue below, he correctly argues we can consider it on appeal because an illegal sentence claim "can be raised at any time regardless of whether the issue was presented to the district court." State v. Johnson, 309 Kan. 992, 995, 441 P.3d 1036 (2019); see also K.S.A. 22-3504(a) (an illegal sentence can be corrected "at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence").

Section 22-3504(a) permits correction of an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving it, even when the defendant did not object to the sentence calculation below.

State v. Garcia · filed 2026-01-16(a)

Garcia concedes he did not object to the district court's calculation of his criminal history score. Regardless, an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence. K.S.A. 22-3504(a); State v. Gomez, 320 Kan. 3, 22, 561 P.3d 908 (2025).

Section 22-3504(a) permits a claim to correct an illegal sentence only while the defendant is serving that sentence; the claim cannot be asserted after the sentence is complete.

State v. Perales · filed 2025-12-19(a)

Once a defendant completes the imposed sentence, he or she can no longer assert a claim for illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(a).

Section 22-3504(a) permits correction of an illegal sentence only while the defendant is serving that sentence.

State v. Woods · filed 2022-12-16(a)

Although we could exercise our discretion to decide a moot issue, we cannot ignore the statutory directive in K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(a) that only allows a court to correct an illegal sentence while the defendant is serving the sentence.

Section 22-3504 does not permit a defendant to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence directly in an appellate court, even though an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time.

State v. Steinert · filed 2022-06-24

And neither our rules nor the controlling statute permit a defendant to file a motion for an illegal sentence with an appellate court, in the first instance. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504. To say that an illegal sentence may be corrected "at any time" does not mean that one may file that motion "in any court."

Section 22-3504(c)(1) requires a colorable claim of an illegal sentence; a mere possibility and conclusory assertions are insufficient grounds for correction.

State v. Phillips · filed 2022-06-24(c)(1)

Posing a mere possibility and making conclusory assertions is an insufficient basis for correction of an illegal sentence. Phillips has failed to make a colorable claim that his sentence was illegal under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1).

Section 22-3504(a) permits a motion to correct an illegal sentence at any time, but does not permit the same claim to be asserted repeatedly.

Bailey v. State · filed 2022-09-16(a)

We will conclude by noting that although K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3504(a) allows a defendant to bring a motion to correct an illegal sentence at any time, the same claim cannot be asserted many times.