State v. Lee
114336
Kan.Jun 9, 2017Background
- Undra D. Lee was convicted of four January 1993 crimes (first‑degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated assault) and sentenced in 1995 to consecutive indeterminate sentences including life.
- The Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) took effect July 1, 1993, creating a severity‑level/grid system and permitting limited retroactive conversion of some pre‑KSGA sentences to grid (determinate) sentences under K.S.A. 21‑4724.
- K.S.A. 21‑4724 directs comparison of a person’s pre‑July 1, 1993 crimes to the law in effect on July 1, 1993 to determine conversion eligibility and limits DOC reporting for certain severity levels.
- Lee moved to correct illegal sentence seeking retroactive conversion to KSGA grid sentences, arguing (1) by analogy to State v. Murdock his pre‑KSGA offenses must be treated as conversion‑eligible because grid designations did not exist when he committed the crimes, and (2) he was entitled to a hearing under K.S.A. 22‑3504.
- The district court summarily denied Lee’s motions; Lee appealed. The record shows the sentencing court imposed preguidelines sentences and computed the hypothetical guidelines sentences per K.S.A. 21‑4724(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lee) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre‑KSGA convictions must be treated as conversion‑eligible because grid designations did not exist when the crimes were committed | Murdock’s rationale requires classifying pre‑1993 offenses as "presumptively non‑prison" (conversion‑eligible) because grid designations didn’t exist pre‑KSGA | Murdock was overruled or inapplicable; K.S.A. 21‑4724 clearly requires comparison to law as of July 1, 1993, to determine eligibility | Denied. Murdock doesn’t control; statute clearly fixes the July 1, 1993 comparison date, so Lee is not entitled to conversion |
| Whether the district court erred by summarily denying Lee’s motions without a hearing or appointment of counsel under K.S.A. 22‑3504 | Lee: statute entitles him to a hearing with counsel and presence | State: records, files, and motion conclusively show no entitlement to relief, so summary denial is proper | Denied. Summary denial proper because record conclusively showed no relief warranted |
| Whether sentencing after July 1, 1993 alters eligibility or computation under K.S.A. 21‑4724(f) | Lee implies post‑July 1 sentencing supports conversion | State: K.S.A. 21‑4724(f) requires imposition of preguidelines sentence and computation of what guidelines sentence would have been; record shows this was done | Held that K.S.A. 21‑4724(f) controlled and the sentencing court complied; no relief due |
| Applicability of prior cases (Murdock/Keel/Jeffries) to sentence‑conversion claims | Lee: extend Murdock to conversion claims | State: Keel overruled Murdock on related point; Jeffries already rejected applying Murdock to conversion because 21‑4724 is unambiguous | Court held Jeffries controls; Murdock’s rationale inapplicable to conversion claims |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 (2014) (held pre‑1993 out‑of‑state convictions must be classified as nonperson offenses for criminal history because no person/nonperson designations existed pre‑KSGA)
- State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 (2015) (overruled Murdock’s temporal comparison rule; classification of prior convictions is determined by law in effect when current crime was committed)
- State v. Jeffries, 304 Kan. 748 (2016) (held K.S.A. 21‑4724 unambiguous: conversion eligibility is determined by comparing pre‑July 1, 1993 acts to law as of July 1, 1993; Murdock inapplicable to conversion)
- State v. Lunsford, 257 Kan. 508 (1995) (conversion eligibility based on severity level is fixed as of July 1, 1993; subsequent events generally do not confer eligibility)
- State v. Fierro, 257 Kan. 639 (1995) (when sentenced after July 1, 1993 for pre‑KSGA crimes, court must impose preguidelines sentence and compute the sentence that would have been imposed under the guidelines)
- State v. Gray, 303 Kan. 1011 (2016) (district court may dismiss a motion to correct an illegal sentence without a hearing if the motion and records conclusively show no entitlement to relief)
- State v. Sims, 294 Kan. 821 (2012) (Supreme Court has jurisdiction over motions to correct illegal sentence when defendant received a life sentence)