State v. Gleason, 505 P.3d 753

1999 rural Jefferson County home invasion left the homeowner dead; Gleason was arrested in April 2002 and later convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to life; direct appeal affirmed in 2004.
Initial April 2002 complaint charged Gleason with conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery (a two-year statute of limitations offense); the State amended the complaint shortly afterward to charge felony murder (and other counts).
Only the felony murder count (which has no statute of limitations) was submitted to the jury and resulted in conviction.
In June 2019 Gleason filed two postconviction motions: one under K.S.A. 60-260(b)(4) to set aside a void judgment and one under K.S.A. 22-3504 to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the original time‑barred charge rendered the entire prosecution void for lack of jurisdiction.
The district court denied both motions; Gleason appealed directly to the Kansas Supreme Court, which affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gleason)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether K.S.A. 60-260(b)(4) permits a criminal defendant to collaterally attack a conviction	60-260(b)(4) allows setting aside a void judgment and thus may be used to attack his conviction	60-260(b)(4) is a civil procedure statute and does not provide a postconviction remedy in criminal cases	Denied—60-260(b)(4) is not a criminal postconviction procedure (Kingsley)
Whether an initial complaint filed after the statute of limitations deprived the court of jurisdiction making the sentence illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504	The original conspiracy charge was time‑barred, so the complaint was void and all subsequent proceedings (including the murder charge) were void for lack of jurisdiction	Statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, not jurisdictional; Gleason waived it by not raising it at trial; State later amended to charge murder (no SOL)	Denied—SOL is not jurisdictional; Gleason waived the defense; the murder charge (no SOL) preserved jurisdiction
Whether a purportedly "void" complaint can be cured by amendment	A void complaint cannot be amended to cure jurisdictional defect; later amendments are ineffective	Because SOL is nonjurisdictional the initial complaint was not void; amendment to charge murder was valid and jurisdiction remained	Denied—no authority that SOL-made complaint was void; amendment and subsequent proceedings were valid

State v. Kingsley, 299 Kan. 896, 326 P.3d 1083 (2014) (K.S.A. 60-260(b)(4) does not provide a procedure for criminal postconviction relief)
State v. Sitlington, 291 Kan. 458, 241 P.3d 1003 (2010) (statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, not jurisdictional)
State v. Valdiviezo-Martinez, 313 Kan. 614, 486 P.3d 1256 (2021) (reaffirms that the statute of limitations is not jurisdictional)
State v. Garcia, 285 Kan. 1, 169 P.3d 1069 (2007) (prosecution for murder may be commenced at any time; no statute of limitations)
State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 624, 88 P.3d 218 (2004) (direct appeal affirming Gleason's conviction)
State v. Alford, 308 Kan. 1336, 429 P.3d 197 (2018) (when a district court summarily denies a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion, appellate review is unlimited)
State v. Smith, 304 Kan. 916, 377 P.3d 414 (2016) (existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)