State v. Allison, 114493

Background

In 1993 a jury convicted Christopher J. Allison of first‑degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first‑degree murder, and terroristic threat; the jury found an aggravator that the murder was committed to avoid or prevent lawful arrest/prosecution.
The jury unanimously recommended a "hard 40" life sentence (life without parole for 40 years) and the trial court sentenced Allison accordingly, consecutively to other terms totaling 22–85 years.
Allison’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Allison, 259 Kan. 25, 910 P.2d 817 (1996).
In 2014 Allison filed a K.S.A. 22‑3504(1) motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing among other things that the verdict form and jury instructions were defective (unanimity requirement and unclear burden for mitigating circumstances), and that his sentence did not conform to statutory requirements.
The district court denied the motion as raising trial errors not cognizable on a motion to correct illegal sentence and alternatively found any error harmless; the Kansas Supreme Court reviews such denials de novo.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the verdict form required improper unanimity such that the hard 40 is illegal	Allison: verdict form forced jury to unanimously choose either hard 40 or baseline life, invalidating the hard 40	State: jury unanimously found required aggravator and followed statutory procedure; sentence lawful	Held: Rejected Allison; the jury made the unanimous findings required and the foreman identified the statutory aggravator, so sentence conforms to statute
Whether jury instructions failed to specify the standard of proof for mitigating circumstances	Allison: instruction unclear about burden/standard for finding mitigating circumstances	State: instruction and verdict show jury applied the proper standard by finding aggravator beyond reasonable doubt and weighing mitigation	Held: Rejected Allison as meritless—statutory prerequisites were satisfied
Whether the sentence is "illegal" under K.S.A. 22‑3504(1)	Allison: sentence does not conform to statutory scheme and thus is illegal, so 22‑3504(1) is proper vehicle	State: many issues are trial errors not cognizable under 22‑3504(1); even if cognizable, no illegality shown	Held: Rejected Allison; sentence was not illegal under 22‑3504(1) because it conformed in character and term and was unambiguous
Whether any error was harmless given the evidence and mitigation	Allison: contends procedural defects could have affected verdict	State: evidence of guilt overwhelming and mitigating circumstances minimal	Held: Court agreed with district court that, even if errors existed, they were harmless (practically no mitigation and overwhelming evidence)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Allison, 259 Kan. 25 (1996) (affirming convictions and sentence)
State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549 (2015) (analysis of when a hard 40 unsupported by aggravator might be an illegal sentence)
State v. Jeffries, 304 Kan. 748 (2016) (standard of review and requirements for summary denial of motion to correct illegal sentence)
State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015) (definition of "illegal" sentence under K.S.A. 22‑3504(1))
State v. Trotter, 296 Kan. 898 (2013) (defining categories of illegal sentence)
Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573 (2013) (limited applicability of K.S.A. 22‑3504(1))
State v. Neal, 292 Kan. 625 (2011) (criminal history scoring challenge as correctable under 22‑3504(1))
State v. Gilbert, 299 Kan. 797 (2014) (motion to correct illegal sentence cannot be used to attack underlying conviction)