State v. Bailey, 112888

In 1986 Bailey committed armed robberies; one victim was killed. He was convicted of first-degree felony murder and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to life. The district court (1989, resentencing 1993) stated restitution of $37,521.07 “for the benefit of the Kansas Adult Authority.”
Under the 1986 restitution statute the court could specify restitution amounts for parole purposes but could not impose enforceable restitution while the defendant remained incarcerated.
Bailey filed pro se motions (2013–2014) seeking release of restitution payments and repayment, claiming the restitution judgment was dormant or otherwise unenforceable; he also moved to correct an illegal sentence arguing misclassification of pre-KSGA offenses under State v. Murdock.
The district court summarily denied the restitution motions (finding no enforceable restitution judgment) and denied the motion to correct sentence (finding Murdock inapplicable to Bailey’s in-state pre‑KSGA offenses).
The Supreme Court held the sentencing entries only provided an advisory restitution calculation (no enforceable judgment), concluded current collections likely stem from a clerical/computer-entry error correctable under K.S.A. 22-3504, and held Bailey’s offenses were properly classified as person felonies under State v. Keel, so his sentence is not illegal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability of restitution	Bailey: restitution was advisory under the 1986 statute and thus unenforceable; any judgment is dormant	State: restitution was properly entered and collectible	Court: No enforceable restitution judgment existed; sentencing entries were advisory for parole board (no dormancy application)
Ongoing collection of restitution	Bailey: money being collected wrongly due to lack of enforceable order	State: collections in place through court system records	Court: Collections likely result from a clerical/computer-entry error; remanded for nunc pro tunc correction under K.S.A. 22-3504
Classification of pre‑KSGA offenses (person vs. nonperson)	Bailey: Murdock should make his pre‑KSGA in-state offenses nonperson felonies	State: Res judicata and prior sentencing bars relief; offenses are person felonies	Court: Res judicata not a bar to correction, but under Keel offenses properly classified as person felonies; sentence not illegal
Availability of relief via K.S.A. 22‑3504	Bailey: clerical error can be corrected at any time	State: (implicit) procedural/precedential obstacles	Court: Clerical mistakes may be corrected at any time; remand for hearing/correction

State v. Alderson, 299 Kan. 148 (2014) (sentencing language that merely advises parole board produces advisory restitution, not an enforceable judgment)
State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 (2015) (pre‑KSGA convictions must be classified by comparing the pre‑KSGA statute to the post‑KSGA analogue)
State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 (2014) (held out‑of‑state pre‑KSGA crimes are nonperson felonies; later overruled by Keel)
State v. DeHerrera, 251 Kan. 143 (1992) (court cannot order restitution to be collected during incarceration under earlier statute interpretations)
State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217 (2016) (classification error of prior crime can create illegal sentence correctable at any time)
State v. Thomas, 239 Kan. 457 (1986) (K.S.A. 22-3504 provides method to correct clerical mistakes in records)