State v. Heronemus
281 P.3d 172
| Kan. | 2012Background
- In 1989 J.M. was hired by Heronemus' telemarketing business and was allegedly forced to have sex, which Heronemus claimed was consensual.
- A jury convicted Heronemus of rape and aggravated criminal sodomy, both class B felonies, under an indeterminate sentencing scheme.
- Because Heronemus was on parole for a 1984 aggravated battery conviction, the State sought application of the Habitual Criminal Act, doubling several sentence terms.
- The court sentenced him to 30 years to life for rape and 10 to 40 years for aggravated sodomy, with the two sentences running consecutively to each other and to the 1984 sentence.
- On direct appeal, convictions were affirmed in 1991; in 2009 he filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under 22-3504, which the district court summarily denied.
- Heronemus appeals the district court’s summary denial and the merits of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary denial proper without counsel or hearing? | Heronemus argues 22-3504 requires counsel and an evidentiary hearing. | Heronemus contends the court must appoint counsel and hold a hearing before denial. | No error; summary denial permitted. |
| Is the 1989 sentence illegal for double-use of prior conviction under HCA? | Heronemus contends sentence improperly used 1984 conviction to enhance penalties under HCA. | State argues HCA and consecutive-sentence provisions apply; no improper enhancement. | Sentence conforms to statutory provisions; legal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Howard, 287 Kan. 686 (2008) (standard of review for 22-3504 motions; de novo review of documents)
- State v. Neal, 292 Kan. 625 (2011) (definition of illegal sentence and review scope)
- State v. Pennington, 288 Kan. 599 (2009) (illegality of sentence; statutory applicability of 22-3504)
- State v. Conley, 287 Kan. 696 (2008) (rejection of pure legal arguments about 22-3504)
- State v. Hoge, 283 Kan. 219 (2007) (briefing deficiencies and preservation of issues)
- State v. Edwards, 281 Kan. 1334 (2006) (review of legal questions in 22-3504 contexts)
- State v. LaBelle, 290 Kan. 529 (2010) (principles on using a single conviction for multiple enhancements)