Makthepharak v. State
298 Kan. 573
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Makthepharak appeals denial of his 22-3504 motion to correct illegal sentence.
- Motion rests on defendant’s claim that the sentence was entered by a court lacking jurisdiction because he was never properly certified for adult prosecution.
- Court lacked jurisdiction if improper certification occurred; jurisdiction for appeal lies with court that heard the original appeal.
- Trial court granted the State’s MAP (motion for adult prosecution); Makthepharak was tried and convicted as an adult and sentenced to life plus 64 months.
- In 2010, Makthepharak moved to correct illegal sentence; district court denied without a substantive hearing; appellate review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court used proper procedure denying the motion | Makthepharak—summary denial should be abandoned; seeks hearing and counsel | State—summary denial appropriate unless substantial issues exist | Summary denial proper; no reversal of procedure |
| Whether the district court’s summary denial was proper on the merits | Sentence illegal due to lack of proper certification as an adult | Court properly certified adult prosecution under 38-1636(e) | Sentence not illegal; proper certification supported by record |
| Whether the district court properly construed Makthepharak’s pro se motion | Motion raises illegality claim; should be treated under 22-3504 | Court’s construction may have been mistaken but merits were reached; no prejudice | Court’s ruling affirming denial on merits upheld; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pennington, 288 Kan. 599, 599, 205 P.3d 741 (2009) (Kan. 2009) (jurisdiction over appeal of motion to correct illegal sentence)
- State v. Jones, 292 Kan. 910, 913, 257 P.3d 268 (2011) (Kan. 2011) (initial examination required; may dismiss without hearing if no substantial issues)
- State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 194-96, 946 P.2d 1375 (1997) (Kan. 1997) (procedural framework for 22-3504 motions; limited applicability of 22-3504(1))
- State v. Nunn, 247 Kan. 576, 584-85, 802 P.2d 547 (1990) (Kan. 1990) (supporting initial examination principle)
- Breedlove, 285 Kan. 1006, 1011-12, 179 P.3d 1115 (2008) (Kan. 2008) (jurisdiction and proper certification required; juvenile code exclusive)
- State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 244-45, 993 P.2d 1213 (1999) (Kan. 1999) (eight factors must be considered in adult certification; not necessarily weighed equally)
- State v. Valdez, 266 Kan. 774, 783, 977 P.2d 242 (1999) (Kan. 1999) (supporting consideration rather than formal findings for certification)
- Trotter, 296 Kan. 898, 902, 295 P.3d 1039 (2013) (Kan. 2013) (definition of an illegal sentence; standard of review for 22-3504)
- State v. Bailey, 292 Kan. 449, 453, 255 P.3d 19 (2011) (Kan. 2011) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in adult certification)