State v. Laughlin video, 444 P.3d 910

In 1993 Derrick Laughlin, prosecuted as an adult, pled guilty to felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and possession of a firearm by a minor; the court imposed consecutive life terms and an additional consecutive 10-to-life term. Convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
In July 2016 Laughlin filed pro se: a motion for appointment of counsel, a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence (arguing multiplicity), and a postsentence motion to withdraw his plea (arguing involuntariness and other defects).
The State filed written responses arguing the motions could be summarily denied, the multiplicity claim was not cognizable under K.S.A. 22-3504, and the plea-withdrawal motion was untimely without excusable neglect.
The district court summarily denied both motions, explaining counsel was unnecessary because files and records showed no entitlement to relief, and treated the multiplicity challenge as outside 22-3504 scope.
Laughlin appealed directly to the Kansas Supreme Court, arguing the district court erred by considering the State’s written responses without appointing counsel and asserting his convictions were multiplicitous.

Issue	Laughlin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether appointment of counsel was required for a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion when the court considered the State’s written response	Considering the State’s written response amounted to a hearing, triggering statutory/due-process right to counsel	No hearing occurred; written response alone does not trigger appointment; summary denial appropriate when files/record show no relief	Court held no right to counsel was triggered; consideration of written response alone is not a hearing and did not require appointment
Whether appointment of counsel was required for a postsentence motion to withdraw plea when the court considered the State’s written response	Laughlin needed counsel to develop excusable neglect and other facts; failure to appoint counsel was error	Postsentence plea-withdrawal motions follow 60-1507 standards: counsel required only if substantial question of law or triable fact; written response alone is not a hearing	Court held no right to counsel was triggered for the plea-withdrawal motion; no substantial issue or hearing was found
Whether aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery convictions are multiplicitous with felony murder such that the sentence is illegal	Laughlin claimed multiplicity made his sentence illegal	Multiplicity challenges cannot be raised in a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion; summary denial appropriate	Court affirmed that multiplicity claims fall outside K.S.A. 22-3504 and summary denial was proper

State v. Jackson, 255 Kan. 455 (1994) (postsentence plea-withdrawal motions treated like K.S.A. 60-1507 for right-to-counsel analysis)
State v. Hemphill, 286 Kan. 583 (2008) (due process requires counsel at a hearing where the State is represented unless waived)
State v. Hoge, 283 Kan. 219 (2007) (K.S.A. 22-3504 motions may be summarily denied without counsel when files/record conclusively show no relief)
State v. Bradford, 299 Kan. 288 (2014) (multiplicity challenges cannot be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence)
State v. Gilbert, 299 Kan. 797 (2014) (standard of review: summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence reviewed de novo)
State v. Pierce, 246 Kan. 183 (1989) (cited for due-process requirement of counsel when a hearing is held and the State is represented)