State v. Moore, 377 P.3d 1162

In 2005 Moore pled guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child; at sentencing the district court scored a 1984 Oregon first-degree burglary (dwelling) as a prior person felony, increasing his criminal-history score and sentence.
Moore did not challenge his criminal-history score on direct appeal; in 2014 he filed a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the prior burglary was misclassified.
Moore's attack asserted the Oregon burglary statute has a broader intent element than the comparable Kansas statute, so the statutes are not comparable and his prior should be nonperson.
The State argued Moore’s claim is constitutional and thus not cognizable under K.S.A. 22-3504, and that Moore waived objections by plea/failure to object at sentencing.
The court treated the issue under Kansas sentencing law and precedent (including Dickey and Williams), analyzed Apprendi/Descamps principles, and evaluated whether the intent difference matters for the person/nonperson classification for burglary.
Court concluded the Oregon conviction was comparable and properly classified as a person offense because only the dwelling element (not intent) controls person/nonperson burglary classification; it affirmed denial of Moore’s motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Moore)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether classification of Moore's Oregon burglary as a person offense violated Apprendi by requiring judge factfinding beyond proof of the prior conviction	Oregon statute's broader intent element makes it not comparable to Kansas burglary, so prior should be nonperson and the judge improperly increased sentence	Classification is a statutory question; intent-element difference doesn't affect person/nonperson burglary classification; classification properly done by judge	Court held no Apprendi violation: intent difference irrelevant to person classification for burglary; Oregon conviction comparable and correctly scored as person felony
Whether Moore could raise this claim via K.S.A. 22-3504 despite being a constitutional challenge	The motion should be allowed because the misclassification affected the sentence and thus made it illegal under Dickey/Neal	Constitutional claims are generally not cognizable under 22-3504; Moore waived some objections	Court held Dickey allows a constitutional challenge that misstates criminal-history score to be raised under 22-3504; procedural objections by State were rejected

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase maximum penalty must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limits when courts may consult underlying conviction documents; categorical/modified-categorical approach)
State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015) (Apprendi-based holding that classifying a prior burglary as person felony based on judicial factfinding about dwelling element was unconstitutional)
State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 870 (2014) (comparable offense means similar in nature, not identical; courts compare statutes, not underlying evidence)
State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 (2015) (discussion of person vs. nonperson offense weighting under Kansas sentencing guidelines)