State v. Kilpatrick
111055
Kan.Aug 11, 2017Background
- In 2006 Kilpatrick was convicted of a felony drug offense (possession of precursors with intent) when Kansas did not require certain drug offenders to register under KORA.
- In 2007 the legislature amended KORA to add some drug offenses to the registration requirement; Kilpatrick was informed of his duty to register when released in 2008.
- In 2012 Kilpatrick was convicted of failing to register under KORA and sentenced to 36 months' supervised probation with community corrections.
- About one year later the State moved to revoke probation; Kilpatrick filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing the retroactive registration requirement violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and therefore the 2012 sentence was illegal and the court lacked jurisdiction.
- The district court denied the motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed that denial but remanded on a separate probation-revocation sentencing-articulation issue.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review limited to the registration/illegal-sentence issue and applied its decisions in State v. Wood and State v. Reese.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive application of KORA registration to Kilpatrick made his 2012 sentence "illegal" under K.S.A. 22-3504 | Kilpatrick: retroactive registration is an Ex Post Facto violation, so the 2012 sentence is illegal and void | State: KORA is regulatory (not punitive) and may be applied retroactively; any jurisdictional attack was waived | Court: Courts have jurisdiction to hear motions to correct illegal sentence, but constitutional challenges do not make a sentence "illegal" under the statute; Kilpatrick's motion fails on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wood, 306 Kan. 283, 393 P.3d 631 (Kan. 2017) (courts have jurisdiction over motions to correct illegal sentence; definition of illegal sentence excludes constitutional claims)
- 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) (appellate affirmance may be upheld for a correct result even if the lower court gave different reasons)