State v. Kilpatrick
111054
| Kan. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- In March 2007 David Kilpatrick pled no contest to possession offenses (ephedrine/pseudoephedrine, lithium metal with intent, and methamphetamine), received a 26-month sentence and probation, and had probation revoked 28 days later to serve the prison term.
- While incarcerated, the Kansas legislature (effective July 1, 2007) amended KORA to add certain drug offenders — including Kilpatrick’s underlying offenses — to the registration requirement.
- After release in June 2008 Kilpatrick was notified of the duty to register and did so; in October 2009 he pled no contest to failing to register and received 36 months’ probation (a dispositional departure).
- Multiple probation revocations followed; when faced with a fourth revocation, Kilpatrick moved to correct his 2009 sentence, arguing the retroactive registration requirement violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and thus his 2009 conviction/sentence was illegal and the court lacked jurisdiction.
- The district court denied the motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed in part but held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the ex post facto claim on a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the outcome, relying on its precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Kilpatrick’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion to correct an illegal sentence may be used to raise an Ex Post Facto challenge to a sentence | Kilpatrick: Registration requirement was applied retroactively in violation of Ex Post Facto, making the 2009 sentence illegal | State: KORA provisions are regulatory (not punitive) and may apply retroactively; Kilpatrick waived jurisdictional attacks | Court: Courts have jurisdiction to hear K.S.A. 22-3504 motions, but Ex Post Facto/constitutional claims do not render a sentence "illegal" under that statute; claim fails on merits |
| Whether retroactive application of KORA is punishment for Ex Post Facto purposes | Kilpatrick: Retroactive registration is punitive | State: KORA is not punitive and can be applied retroactively | Court: Relied on Wood and Reese holdings that constitutional claims of this type are not cognizable as motions to correct illegal sentences |
| Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict/sentence Kilpatrick for failure to register | Kilpatrick: District court had no jurisdiction because law could not constitutionally apply | State: Jurisdictional attacks were waived if not timely raised | Court: Jurisdiction exists to consider the motion, but the claim did not show an illegal sentence; outcome affirmed |
| Whether the motion to correct an illegal sentence was timely and proper vehicle | Kilpatrick: Sought correction via K.S.A. 22-3504 | State: Challenged the appropriateness and timeliness | Court: Motion is a permissible vehicle, but does not encompass constitutional sentencing challenges as making a sentence "illegal" |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wood, 306 Kan. 283, 393 P.3d 631 (Kan. 2017) (courts may entertain K.S.A. 22-3504 motions at any time; constitutional claims do not convert a sentence into an "illegal sentence")
- State v. Reese, 306 Kan. 279, 393 P.3d 599 (Kan. 2017) (same holding regarding scope of "illegal sentence")
- State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 363 P.3d 1101 (Kan. 2016) (affirming judgment for the right reason despite differing rationale)