State v. Angelo, 114721

Patrick Angelo was convicted by jury (2005) of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder; PSI indicated life imprisonment for each count.
At the 2006 sentencing hearing the judge pronounced life imprisonment for Count I and spoke of life for Count II but did not explicitly state the term for Count II; the judge said sentences would run consecutively and parole eligibility after 25 years on each, and the journal entry listed life on both counts consecutive.
Angelo did not challenge sentence on direct appeal; later filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion arguing the transcript showed only one life sentence was actually pronounced and asked to correct the journal entry.
The Court of Appeals found the sentence for Count II ambiguous (no term articulated) and held it illegal, remanding for resentencing.
On remand (2015) a different judge imposed life with parole eligibility after 25 years on both counts, ordered consecutive as originally intended; Angelo appealed, arguing resentencing illegally increased his punishment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing may impose consecutive life terms when original oral pronouncement omitted an explicit term for Count II	State: resentencing may correct an ambiguous/illegal sentence to reflect original intent	Angelo: original oral sentence effectively imposed only one life sentence; silence as to Count II means concurrent by statute and resentencing to consecutive life terms increased sentence illegally	Court: K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 21-4603 (prohibiting increase) does not apply to crimes after July 1, 1993; Angelo waived other arguments; affirmed consecutive life terms
Whether K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 21-4603(d)(2) bars imposing a harsher sentence on resentencing	Angelo: relied on Royse et al. to argue court cannot increase sentence on resentencing	State: statute and cases cited apply only to crimes committed before July 1, 1993; Angelo’s crimes occurred in 2004	Court: statute inapplicable because of temporal limit; precedent relied on is likewise confined; Angelo failed to cite applicable authority or constitutional claim, so argument waived

State v. Royse, 252 Kan. 394 (interpretation that district court may reduce but not increase a sentence under predecessor statute)
Veronee v. State, 193 Kan. 681 (similar holding regarding inability to increase sentence under prior statute)
State v. Zirkle, 15 Kan. App. 2d 674 (case law applying predecessor statute to prohibit increasing sentences on remand)
State v. Warrior, 303 Kan. 1008 (defining illegal sentence as one not conforming to applicable statute)
State v. Chavez, 292 Kan. 464 (sentence illegality is question of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
McCain Foods USA, Inc. v. Central Processors, Inc., 275 Kan. 1 (failure to brief an issue with authority amounts to waiver)