State v. Jackson, 496 P.3d 533

Robert L. Jackson was convicted (1994) of two counts of first-degree murder arising from a Topeka nightclub shooting; jury recommended a hard-40 life sentence for one murder and hard-15 for the other.
K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4624(1) required the prosecutor to file and serve written notice "at the time of arraignment" if seeking a hard-40 sentence; failure to do so precludes imposing the mandatory 40-year term.
The State filed and served its written notice on May 5, 1994 — about 50 days before Jackson’s June 24, 1994 arraignment.
In 2019 Jackson filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing the early notice did not strictly comply with the statute and thus the hard-40 sentence must be vacated.
The district court denied the motion, relying on Kansas precedent that filing and serving notice before (not strictly at) arraignment satisfies the statute; Jackson appealed.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding pre-arraignment filing and service meets the statutory requirement and rejecting Jackson’s retroactivity/ex post facto objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether notice filed and served before arraignment satisfies K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4624(1)’s "at the time of arraignment" requirement	Jackson: statute requires filing/serving at the arraignment; early notice fails strict compliance and invalidates hard-40 sentence	State: filing and service before arraignment serves the statute’s purpose and complies with precedent (so sentence stands)	Court held filing and service before arraignment satisfies the statutory requirement; sentence affirmed
Whether applying later case law (Richardson) to uphold pre-arraignment notice would violate ex post facto principles	Jackson: Richardson postdates his arraignment and cannot be applied retroactively to increase punishment	State: Richardson interprets the statute in effect at the time of the crime and applies to pending cases; no ex post facto problem	Court held no ex post facto violation; Richardson applies to Jackson’s case (it interprets the existing statute)

State v. Richardson, 256 Kan. 69, 883 P.2d 1107 (1994) (held notice filed and served before arraignment satisfies the statute’s "at the time of arraignment" requirement)
State v. Deavers, 252 Kan. 149, 843 P.2d 695 (1992) (vacated hard-40 where notice was served after arraignment; requires strict compliance with timing)
State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 875 P.2d 257 (1994) (held the statute’s timing applied to both service and filing; late filing can invalidate notice)
State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 946 P.2d 1375 (1997) (reiterated that failure of strict compliance requires vacating a hard-40 sentence)
State v. Bailey, 251 Kan. 156, 834 P.2d 342 (1992) (explained the purpose of arraignment-time notice: to allow defendant to plan strategy)
State v. Campbell, 307 Kan. 130, 407 P.3d 240 (2017) (explained retroactivity principles and that interpreting an existing statute does not raise ex post facto issues)