State v. Gray, 303 Kan. 1011

In 1986 Kevin Gray pled guilty to four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape as part of a plea agreement; multiple other aggravated charges were dismissed.
Gray was sentenced to 15 years to life on each rape count and 5 to 20 years on the attempted rape count, with the rape sentences consecutive and the attempted rape concurrent.
Twenty-six years later Gray filed a motion under K.S.A. 22-3504 seeking correction of the journal entry/sentence as illegal or ambiguous.
The district court performed a preliminary review of the motion, treated it as a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and summarily denied it without appointing counsel or holding a hearing.
Gray sought reconsideration; the district court again summarily denied relief. Gray appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court.

Issue	Gray's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether district courts must appoint counsel and hold a hearing on every K.S.A. 22-3504 motion	Automatic appointment of counsel and a hearing are required by the statute and public policy	Courts may perform a preliminary examination and may summarily deny motions that do not raise substantial issues	Court upheld precedent: preliminary examination is sufficient; no automatic counsel/hearing rule required
Whether Gray's sentence was illegal or ambiguous because the sentencing hearing/journal entry failed to identify statutes for certain counts	Sentencing statements and the journal entry omitted the specific rape statute for some counts (and the underlying rape statute for the attempted rape count), creating ambiguity about time/manner of service	The oral pronouncement and journal entry sufficiently identify the crimes, sentences, and manner of service; any statutory citations are clear enough in context	Court held the sentence was not illegal or ambiguous; summary denial affirmed

State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193 (1997) (preliminary examination may justify summary denial of K.S.A. 22-3504 motions)
Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573 (2013) (district courts should conduct preliminary examination of motions to correct illegal sentence)
State v. Jones, 292 Kan. 910 (2011) (motion, files, and records may conclusively show no entitlement to relief)
State v. Heronemus, 294 Kan. 933 (2012) (reaffirming procedures for handling K.S.A. 22-3504 motions)
State v. Floyd, 296 Kan. 685 (2013) (illegal-sentence issues may be raised for the first time on appeal)
State v. Trotter, 296 Kan. 898 (2013) (definition of "illegal sentence" under K.S.A. 22-3504)
State v. Taylor, 299 Kan. 5 (2014) (illegal-sentence determination is a question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Gilbert, 299 Kan. 797 (2014) (records must conclusively show defendant not entitled to relief for summary denial)
State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015) (reiterating that K.S.A. 22-3504 permits correction at any time)