State v. Cotton, 114351

In 1988 Cotton pled guilty to three forgery counts and was later convicted by jury of multiple offenses including first-degree murder; he received multiple lengthy and life sentences. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 1990.
In 2014 (26 years after conviction) Cotton filed two pro se motions titled “motion to set aside a void judgment”; the first duplicated a previously denied 2002 motion and is not at issue.
The December 4, 2014 motion raised eight grounds alleging trial error and due process violations (e.g., improper questioning, flawed jury instructions on premeditation and reasonable doubt, prosecutorial misconduct, failure to prove corpus delicti, cumulative error).
The district court summarily denied the motion as untimely, treating it as a motion to arrest judgment or for judgment of acquittal and noting Cotton was past deadlines for post-conviction relief.
Cotton asked the Supreme Court to construe his filing as a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 (which is not time-barred) and sought reversal or, alternatively, remand for findings of fact.

Issue	Cotton's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the pro se filing can be treated as a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence	Treat the motion as K.S.A. 22-3504 so time limits do not bar review	The claims attack convictions, not sentence, so §22-3504 is improper vehicle	Court assumed arguendo it could be so treated but found §22-3504 inapplicable to Cotton’s claims and denied relief
Whether Cotton’s eight grounds render his sentence illegal for lack of jurisdiction (due process violation)	Trial errors and due process violations deprived court of jurisdiction, making sentence void	These arguments attack convictions and do not fit the statutory definitions of an illegal sentence	Court held due process/constitutional challenges cannot be raised via §22-3504; they attack convictions, not sentence
Whether a motion under K.S.A. 22-3504 may be used to collateral-attack convictions	N/A (Cotton sought to avoid timeliness by recasting claims)	§22-3504 is limited to correcting illegal sentences, not reversing convictions	Court reaffirmed §22-3504 is solely to correct sentences, not to collaterally attack convictions
Whether remand for findings of fact was warranted	Cotton requested remand if not reversed	State opposed — wrong procedural vehicle; no §22-3504 relief	Court denied remand; affirmed summary denial (right result even if district court relied on different reasoning)

State v. Gray, 303 Kan. 1011 (illegal-sentence definition and may be raised for the first time on appeal)
Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573 (definition of illegal sentence scope)
State v. Gilbert, 299 Kan. 797 (§22-3504 is a vehicle to correct sentences, not to reverse convictions)
State v. Williams, 283 Kan. 492 (§22-3504 is not for collateral attack on convictions)
State v. Hankins, 304 Kan. 226 (constitutional/due process claims not remedyable under §22-3504)
State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374 (definition of illegal sentence excludes constitutional claims)
State v. Deal, 286 Kan. 528 (appellate court will affirm district court reached correct result even if for wrong reason)