State v. Hankins
304 Kan. 226
| Kan. | 2016Background
- Anthony C. Hankins pleaded guilty to multiple felonies in Kansas; his PSI listed two prior misdemeanors and one prior nonperson felony from Oklahoma based on an Oklahoma deferred judgment, which the PSI counted in his criminal history and produced a higher criminal-history classification.
- At sentencing Hankins’ counsel acknowledged the PSI and stated they had nothing to add; defense counsel later explained they intentionally did not challenge the Oklahoma matter as part of a departure strategy; the court imposed a controlling sentence of 68 months.
- Hankins voluntarily dismissed his direct appeal, then filed a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing the Oklahoma deferred judgment is not a conviction for Kansas criminal-history scoring.
- The district court denied relief, finding waiver/invited error based on counsel’s statements and concluding Oklahoma’s deferred-judgment procedure sufficiently established guilt to count as a conviction.
- A divided Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed (majority applying invited error; concurrence agreed on result but disagreed on invited error), and the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Hankins' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether invited-error/stipulation bars collateral attack under K.S.A. 22-3504 | Hankins: counsel’s acknowledgment did not waive legal challenge to criminal-history scoring; illegal sentence review remains available | State: defense stipulated to PSI and cannot later challenge criminal-history score (invited error) | Court: invited-error does not bar review; legal conclusion about scoring cannot be stipulated away |
| Whether a due-process or other constitutional challenge is cognizable in 22-3504 motion | Hankins: due-process claim should override procedural bars | State: procedural posture limits relief under 22-3504 | Court: due-process claim not properly raised in 22-3504; not decided here |
| Whether Oklahoma deferred judgment constitutes a conviction for Kansas criminal-history scoring | Hankins: successful Oklahoma deferred judgment results in no judgment of guilt, so it is not a conviction for Kansas scoring | State: Oklahoma plea and journal entry suffice; it was properly counted | Court: Kansas definition of "conviction" requires a judgment of guilt; a successfully completed Oklahoma deferred judgment yields no judgment of guilt and is not a conviction for Kansas scoring |
| Whether sentence is nevertheless legal because 68 months falls within presumptive range of correct grid block | State: 68 months is within the presumptive range of the correct grid (61/66/71) so sentence is legal | Hankins: sentence was selected from wrong grid block and is therefore illegal even if numerically within other grid ranges | Court: Sentence is illegal because judge did not select from the correct grid block; being numerically within another block’s range does not validate an otherwise illegal sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (clarifying that stipulations to convictions do not bar legal challenges to classification/scoring)
- State v. Weber, 297 Kan. 805 (defendant cannot agree to an illegal sentence; limits on stipulations)
- State v. Pollard, 273 Kan. 706 (discussing foreign suspended-imposition procedures and Kansas definition of conviction)
- State v. Holmes, 222 Kan. 212 (defining conviction as entry of judgment of guilt following acceptance of plea)
- State v. Macias, 30 Kan. App. 2d 79 (Court of Appeals decision counting Texas deferred adjudication in criminal-history; discussed but not controlling)
- State v. McCarley, 287 Kan. 167 (illegal sentence must be corrected even if new sentence is more severe)