State v. Murray, 271 P.3d 739

Murray convicted of aggravated robbery and felony murder; 28-year-old convictions; pretrial competency motion filed under K.S.A. 22-3302; court ordered competency evaluation but record silent on post-evaluation competency hearing; subsequent motions and appeals occurred; effective challenge in 2009 motion to correct illegal sentence; district court summarily dismissed without evidentiary record.
Record shows district court found good cause for competency evaluation the day of the motion; docket/journal entries do not confirm a post-evaluation competency hearing; related motions addressed concerns but did not challenge jurisdiction; prior state and federal proceedings discussed for context.
Appellant argues lack of competency hearing deprived court of jurisdiction; state argues waiver and that issue disposed by previous 60-1507 proceeding; Supreme Court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine if a competency hearing occurred.
Court must determine whether an actual competency hearing occurred; if not, jurisdictional defect requires relief; subject-matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time; remand for fill-in of record and potential relief.
The decision clarifies that an illegal sentence can arise from jurisdictional defects if a competency hearing was not held; if absent, district court must grant relief on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Murray's sentence is illegal for lack of a competency hearing.	Murray—no competency hearing occurred.	State contends waiver; third 60-1507 resolves nothing on jurisdiction.	Remanded for evidentiary hearing on competency hearing occurrence.
Did the district court have jurisdiction to try and sentence Murray without a competency hearing?	Lack of competency hearing stripped court of jurisdiction.	Waiver and prior motions addressed jurisdiction.	Remand to determine actual jurisdictional status.
Did Murray forfeit his jurisdictional challenge by delay or by prior 60-1507 actions?	Jurisdictional defect can be challenged anytime.	Waiver due to delay; 60-1507 ruling disposed the issue.	Rejects waiver; remand needed to resolve record.
Should the State provide additional record evidence on whether a competency hearing occurred?	Record is incomplete; need proof of hearing.	N/A or consistent with remand.	Yes; remand to allow State to fill gaps.
What happens if the competency hearing did not occur?	If none, relief required under Davis.	N/A.	Relief required; Davis controls.

State v. Davis, 281 Kan. 169 (2006) (illegality when no competency hearing; jurisdictional deprival; review de novo)
State v. Irving, 216 Kan. 588 (1975) (court will not presume waiver of jury trial from silent record)
State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310 (1994) (remand when record incomplete to show notice; later disapproved on other grounds)