State v. Phillips, 437 P.3d 961

Michael E. Phillips was convicted of first-degree felony murder, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm and received an off-grid life sentence plus other consecutive terms.
Phillips appealed; the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and most of the sentence but vacated the district court’s order imposing lifetime postrelease supervision as unauthorized with an indeterminate off-grid life term.
The Supreme Court issued its opinion and the clerk issued a mandate on February 11, 2013; the opinion did not include an explicit remand instruction to the district court.
The district court held a hearing on August 15, 2014, to address the mandate and indicated it would set aside the prior postrelease supervision order, but the hearing lacked clear procedural authority and produced confusion about its purpose.
Phillips filed a K.S.A. 22-3501 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence on March 6, 2015; the district court denied the motion as untimely, ruling the two-year filing period began with the February 11, 2013 mandate.
Phillips appealed the timeliness determination to the Kansas Supreme Court, which reviewed whether the judgment became final when the mandate issued or only after the 2014 district court proceeding.

Issue	Phillips' Argument	State's Argument	Held
When did the two-year filing period for a K.S.A. 22-3501 motion based on newly discovered evidence begin — date the appellate mandate issued or the later district court "remand" hearing?	The two-year period began with the district court’s August 15, 2014 remand hearing (or 14 days later), so his March 6, 2015 motion was timely.	The judgment became final on February 11, 2013 when the Supreme Court issued its mandate; no remand or further district-court proceedings were required, so the March 6, 2015 motion was untimely.	The court held the judgment became final on the date the Supreme Court issued its mandate (Feb. 11, 2013); Phillips’ March 6, 2015 motion was untimely and denial was affirmed.

State v. Phillips, 295 Kan. 929, 287 P.3d 245 (2012) (appellate decision affirming convictions and vacating unauthorized postrelease supervision)
State v. Tafoya, 304 Kan. 663, 372 P.3d 1247 (2016) (sentencing court lacks authority to impose postrelease supervision with an off-grid indeterminate life sentence)
State v. Warren, 302 Kan. 601, 356 P.3d 396 (2015) (standard of review for trial court’s decision on a motion for new trial)
State v. Jolly, 291 Kan. 842, 249 P.3d 421 (2011) (questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo)