439 P.3d 307
Kan.2019Background
- Jimmy Lee Murdock pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of robbery (Dec. 2008). Prior convictions included two Illinois robberies (1984, 1990) and a 1996 Kansas robbery.
- At original sentencing the district court classified all three priors as person felonies, producing criminal history category A and a 233-month total sentence.
- On direct appeal this Court (State v. Murdock) held out-of-state priors must be compared to Kansas law as of the date the out-of-state offenses occurred, so the Illinois priors were nonperson felonies; the case was remanded and Murdock was resentenced (Feb. 2015) to 102 months (criminal history C).
- Months later this Court overruled Murdock in State v. Keel, holding comparability is determined by the Kansas statute in effect when the current Kansas offense was committed; the State moved to correct Murdock’s sentence and the district court resentenced him (Jan. 2017) to 233 months (criminal history A).
- While appeal was pending, the Legislature amended K.S.A. 22-3504 to state a sentence is not illegal solely because of a change in law after it was pronounced. Murdock argued his 2015 resentencing was lawful when pronounced and could not be rendered illegal by later decisions or statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Murdock) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence that was legal when pronounced can later become "illegal" after intervening changes in law | Keel reflects the correct interpretation of the KSGA (not a change) so Murdock’s 2015 sentence was illegal at imposition; alternatively, later law makes it correct to reclassify priors | 2015 resentencing conformed to controlling law at that time (this Court’s mandate); subsequent changes cannot retroactively render it illegal | Legality of a sentence is determined by the law in effect when pronounced; a sentence lawful at that moment does not become illegal due to later changes in law |
| Whether K.S.A. 22-3504 permits correction of a sentence based on subsequent legal developments | The statute allows correction of illegal sentences at any time; post-sentencing changes can demonstrate illegality | The "at any time" phrase does not allow retroactive invalidation of a lawfully imposed sentence | "At any time" means timing of filing is not restricted, but legality is fixed at sentencing; later developments can justify revisiting an earlier merits error but cannot transform a once-legal sentence into illegality |
| Whether Keel overruled Murdock and thereby rendered the 2015 resentencing illegal | Keel is correct and consistent with KSGA so it applies to prior sentences | Murdock was controlling precedent at resentencing; Keel changed the law and cannot retroactively make a previously legal sentence illegal | Keel did overrule Murdock on the law, but that change does not retroactively make Murdock’s 2015 sentence illegal |
| Whether preclusion doctrines bar the State’s successive motion to correct an illegal sentence | Preclusion does not bar correction of an illegal sentence because such sentences can be corrected at any time | The State failed to appeal the 2015 resentencing; res judicata/law of the case bar relitigation | A prior merits determination of legality (based on law at sentencing) generally precludes relitigation; but courts may entertain successive motions when later developments show the earlier merits ruling was wrong — here no relief because the 2015 sentence was legal when imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 (Court held comparability determined by law at time of prior out-of-state offense)
- State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 (Court overruled Murdock; comparability determined by law when current Kansas crime committed)
- State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (clarified that out-of-state conviction elements must be identical to or narrower than Kansas offense to be comparable)
- State v. Lee, 304 Kan. 416 (indicated legality for K.S.A. 22-3504 purposes is judged by statute in effect at sentencing)