State v. Moncla
301 Kan. 549
| Kan. | 2015Background
- Monda was convicted of first-degree murder in May 1995 based on evidence including 18 hammer blows to the victim’s head, leading to an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (E-HAC) aggravator and a hard 40-life sentence.
- restitution and court costs were set by a journal entry five months after sentencing; restitution hearings were anticipated if disputes arose.
- On direct appeal, conviction and sentence were affirmed in State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 936 P.2d 727 (1997).
- In January 2013, Monda pro se moved to correct illegal sentence, challenging the E-HAC finding, judge bias, trial/jurisdiction issues, and restitution matters.
- The district court summarily denied the motion; Monda appealed, arguing the motion raised substantial issues of law or fact.
- The court applied the standard from Gilbert and Makthepharak to assess whether the motion conclusively shows lack of entitlement to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to correct illegal sentence warranted a hearing | Monda claimed the motion raised substantial issues on law and fact. | State argued the motion was not legally substantial and could be denied summarily. | No substantial issue; summary denial affirmed. |
| Whether the hard 40 sentence was illegal for lack of sufficient aggravating evidence | Monda contends aggravator supported by hammer blows was not proven; sentence illegal. | State contends the E-HAC finding was adequately supported and did not require recalibration of the sentence. | Evidence supported E-HAC; sentence conformed to statute. |
| Whether Alleyne-based constitutional challenges could be raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence | Alleyne required jury factual findings for any sentence increase; thus unconstitutional as applied. | Alleyne challenges are not proper in a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct illegal sentence. | Alleyne-based claims are not properly raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence. |
| Whether restitution finality affected finality of the sentence | Restitution still open at sentencing made the sentence not final under Alleyne. | Finality occurred when restitution was set in a final order; hearing procedure complied. | Sentence final before direct appeal; restitution procedure compliant; not invalidating sentence. |
| Whether open restitution procedure affected jurisdiction over the sentence | Argument about jurisdiction due to restitution issues. | District court retained jurisdiction; Frierson-like procedures satisfied. | No jurisdictional defect; procedures satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gilbert, 299 Kan. 797 (2014) (de novo review of summary denial; criteria for illegal sentence)
- Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573 (2013) (initial screening; substantial issues required for appointment of counsel)
- State v. Coleman, 271 Kan. 733 (2001) (aggravator weighing not requiring explicit enumerations)
- State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374 (2007) ( Alleyne-based challenges improper in illegal-sentence motion)
- Verge v. State, 50 Kan. App. 2d 591 (2014) (Alleyne challenge proper context of sentencing challenges)
- State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978 (2014) (restitution remaining open did not render sentence nonfinal)
- State v. Frierson, 298 Kan. 1005 (2014) (finality of restitution order)
- State v. Brown, 299 Kan. 1021 (2014) (finality tied to final journal entry for restitution)