State v. Phillips, 122736

Phillips was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery (2015) and sentenced based on a PSI showing criminal history category A.
The PSI listed a 2002 conviction for "Flee or Attempt to Elude an Officer" under K.S.A. 8-1568, marked as an adult person felony (subsection unspecified).
At sentencing Phillips made a general oral objection to person/nonperson classifications but did not admit his criminal history or provide the written notice of error required by K.S.A. 21-6814(c).
This case reached the Court of Appeals after prior appeals and remands; the Kansas Supreme Court vacated part of the appellate opinion and directed reconsideration in light of State v. Roberts.
The key legal question was whether the State met its burden to prove the 2002 conviction could be counted as a person felony for criminal-history scoring, impacting Phillips' presumptive sentence.
The Court held the PSI summary satisfied the State’s burden under K.S.A. 21-6814(b) (and Roberts), Phillips failed to carry the shifted burden to prove error, and his illegal-sentence challenge was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in classifying Phillips' 2002 fleeing/eluding conviction as a felony for criminal-history scoring, making his sentence illegal	Phillips: PSI did not specify subsection of K.S.A. 8-1568; State failed to prove the conviction was a person felony, so criminal-history score A (and sentence) is unsupported	State: PSI summary listing the conviction as an adult person felony satisfies the evidentiary burden under K.S.A. 21-6814(b); Phillips failed to give required written notice, so burden shifted to him to prove error	Held: Affirmed. The PSI summary satisfied the State’s burden; because Phillips did not provide written notice or evidence that the conviction was a misdemeanor, he failed to prove his sentence was illegal

State v. Roberts, 314 Kan. 316, 498 P.3d 725 (Kan. 2021) (interpreting K.S.A. 21-6814 and holding that a defendant who fails to give required written notice shifts the burden to the defendant to prove alleged criminal-history errors on appeal)
State v. Corby, 314 Kan. 794, 502 P.3d 111 (Kan. 2022) (explaining K.S.A. 21-6814(a) provides two paths: defendant admission or judge determination by preponderance)
State v. Jones, 272 Kan. 674, 35 P.3d 887 (Kan. 2001) (State bears burden at sentencing to prove constitutional validity of prior convictions used to enhance sentence)
State v. Youngblood, 288 Kan. 659, 206 P.3d 518 (Kan. 2009) (uncounseled misdemeanor convictions obtained in violation of Sixth Amendment may not be used to enhance later sentences)
State v. Patterson, 262 Kan. 481, 939 P.2d 909 (Kan. 1997) (party asserting an illegal sentence bears burden to prove illegality)
State v. Sartin, 310 Kan. 367, 446 P.3d 1068 (Kan. 2019) (illegal-sentence determination is a question of law reviewed de novo)