State v. Amos, 115925

Vernon J. Amos was convicted of first-degree murder (1999) and later sentenced to a "hard 40" mandatory minimum; his direct appeal concluded and sentence became final in 2001.
In 2013 Kansas enacted legislation (L. 2013, ch. 1; now K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6620) requiring jury findings before imposing an enhanced mandatory minimum for premeditated first-degree murder, but subsection (f) excluded cases final before June 17, 2013.
Amos filed a pro se K.S.A. 22-3504(1) motion in 2015 seeking correction of an "illegal sentence," relying on the 2013 statute and Kansas decisions; the district court summarily denied relief.
On appeal Amos argued for the first time that subsection (f)’s cutoff violates the Equal Protection Clause, effectively seeking to import Alleyne/Apprendi jury protections into his final 2001 sentence.
The State and the court treated the motion as a K.S.A. 22-3504(1) illegal-sentence claim; the court analyzed whether constitutional challenges or invalidation of subsection (f) could be raised under that statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Amos)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Amos may use K.S.A. 22-3504(1) to secure relief by (a) applying the 2013 statute or (b) declaring subsection (f) unconstitutional under Equal Protection	Amos: 22-3504(1) permits correction because his sentence is "illegal" under the post-2013 statutory scheme; alternatively, subsection (f) violates Equal Protection so he should get a new jury sentencing	State: 22-3504(1) is limited to statutory/sentencing errors (jurisdiction, statutory conformity, ambiguity) and cannot be used to raise constitutional challenges to a sentence or to attack subsection (f)	Court: Affirmed denial. A § 22-3504(1) motion cannot be used to litigate constitutional claims (including equal protection) or to declare subsection (f) unconstitutional; Amos’ sentence conformed to the statute because (f) expressly excludes his final sentence, so no statutory illegality was shown

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (jury finding required for facts that increase mandatory minimum)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing penalty must be found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549 (K.S.A. 22-3504(1) cannot be used to raise constitutional challenges to a sentence)
State v. Thomas, 239 Kan. 457 (definition of "illegal sentence" under Kansas law)
State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374 (reiterating limits on § 22-3504(1) for constitutional claims)