State v. Bradford, 323 P.3d 168

In 1997 Bradford participated in a home invasion that resulted in multiple victims being beaten, stabbed, and fatally shot; a jury convicted him of capital murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and two counts of felony theft.
This court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing because the district court had imposed upward durational departures found unconstitutional in State v. Gould.
On remand Bradford received life with a mandatory 40-year minimum for capital murder and 238 months consecutive for the remaining convictions.
In May 2012 Bradford filed a pro se K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence, asserting his convictions were multiplicitous.
The district court heard the motion (with counsel for Bradford), addressed the merits, and concluded the convictions were not multiplicitous, denying relief.
Bradford appealed the denial; the appellate issue is whether a multiplicity claim may be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a multiplicity challenge can be raised in a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence	Bradford: convictions are multiplicitous, so the sentence is illegal and subject to correction	State: multiplicity is a challenge to the convictions, not an illegal-sentence claim, and cannot be raised in a § 22-3504 motion	Court: multiplicity claims cannot be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence; denial affirmed on procedural grounds

State v. Sims, 294 Kan. 821 (motion to correct illegal sentence limited; multiplicity challenge improper)
State v. Edwards, 281 Kan. 1334 (multiplicity claim not cognizable in motion to correct illegal sentence)
State v. Bradford, 272 Kan. 523 (affirming convictions and remanding for resentencing)
State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394 (invalidated Kansas upward durational departure scheme)
Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 (standard for departing from court precedent)