Hayes v. State
108233
| Kan. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Hayes was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 1998 and later required to register under KORA; he committed later KORA violations in 2007 and pled guilty to two counts.
- Sentencing: original prison term with postrelease supervision, later a dispositional departure to probation, then probation revoked and a modified prison term; final sentence entered January 12, 2009.
- Hayes filed a pro se K.S.A. 60-1507 motion on January 6, 2012 (nearly 3 years after sentencing), asserting among other claims that 2006 KORA amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- District court summarily denied the motion as untimely and for failure to show "manifest injustice;" the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- On review the Kansas Supreme Court analyzed the manifest-injustice standard (including post-2016 statutory amendment), concluded Hayes did not meet any applicable standard, and rejected his ex post facto and illegal-sentence arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hayes) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / manifest injustice to extend K.S.A. 60-1507(f) deadline | Motion untimely but merits require relief to prevent manifest injustice | Hayes offered no explanation for delay and no actual-innocence claim; statute bars extension absent manifest injustice | Denied—Hayes failed to show manifest injustice under either pre- or post-2016 standards |
| Proper scope of "manifest injustice" inquiry | Court should consider merits broadly (per Vontress) | Inquiry limited to reasons for delay or colorable actual-innocence claim (per 2016 amendment) | Either standard fails here because Hayes gave no reason for delay and alleged no actual innocence |
| Ex post facto challenge to 2006 KORA amendments | 2006 amendments are punitive and cannot be applied retroactively | Hayes committed KORA violations in 2007 after the 2006 amendments took effect; no ex post facto problem | Denied—no ex post facto violation because the charged conduct occurred after the amendments' effective date |
| Claim that the sentence is "illegal" under K.S.A. 22-3504 based on constitutional violation | For the first time on appeal, Hayes argues constitutional error makes sentence illegal | An illegal-sentence motion cannot be used to raise constitutional-sentence challenges | Rejected—constitutional claims do not convert the sentence into an "illegal sentence" under 22-3504 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Myers, 260 Kan. 669 (Kansas Supreme Court) (KORA registration is nonpunitive for ex post facto purposes)
- Vontress v. State, 299 Kan. 607 (Kansas Supreme Court) (manifest-injustice totality-of-circumstances test including actual innocence)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (U.S. Supreme Court) (actual-innocence gateway to overcome procedural default)
- State v. Armbrust, 274 Kan. 1089 (Kansas Supreme Court) (no ex post facto violation when offense occurred after statute's effective date)
- Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1 (Kansas Supreme Court) (considering merits alongside reasons for delay in manifest-injustice analysis)