State v. Roat, 466 P.3d 439

Background

Tony R. Roat pleaded guilty in two separate cases (2009 criminal threat; 2011 possession) and was sentenced using a criminal-history score that relied on a 1984 Kansas burglary classification as a person felony.
Roat’s probation was revoked in the first case; he received a combined term of incarceration and completed all prison and post-release supervision by February 28, 2015.
While serving, Roat filed motions to correct illegal sentences arguing the prior conviction was miscored under later cases (Murdock and Dickey); district court denied relief and Roat appealed.
After Roat completed his sentence, the State notified the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot; Roat argued the appeal was needed to preserve a legal-malpractice claim and to prevent adverse effects on future sentencing.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, analyzed the mootness doctrine (prudential vs. jurisdictional), evaluated Roat’s asserted collateral interests, and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal as moot.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Roat)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Roat’s sentencing-appeal is moot after he completed his sentence	Appeal is not moot because relief could affect future rights and preserve ability to sue trial counsel for malpractice	Appeal is moot because Roat fully served sentence and any reversal would be ineffectual to alter past confinement	Appeal is moot; completion of sentence makes direct relief ineffectual, so dismissal affirmed
Whether the possibility of a legal-malpractice claim preserves the appeal	A favorable appellate ruling is necessary to bring malpractice suit (avoid res judicata and show sentence was illegal)	Hypothetical malpractice claim is speculative and insufficient to defeat mootness; Roat failed to plead a nonfrivolous malpractice theory	Malpractice prospect insufficient—Roat did not identify an adequate, nonfrivolous malpractice theory, so it does not prevent mootness
Whether collateral consequences or future sentencing reliance prevent mootness	Future courts might rely on journal entries or prior scoring, harming Roat’s future sentencing	Statutes and precedent require future courts to allow objections and proof; mere speculation about future reliance is insufficient	Speculative collateral consequences and abstract interest in a “correct sentence” do not defeat mootness
Effect of 2019 amendment to K.S.A. 22-3504 on Roat’s appeal	Amendment allowing correction "at any time while defendant is serving sentence" could affect access to relief	Amendment is procedural and does not revive motions already filed while serving or change vested appellate rights materially here	Amendment does not change outcome; Roat filed while serving and had vested right to appeal—amendment does not rescue this appeal from mootness

Key Cases Cited

State v. Montgomery, 295 Kan. 837 (2012) (articulates the three-part test for mootness and that an appeal is moot only if judgment would be ineffectual for any purpose)
State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 (2014) (addressed criminal-history scoring issues later relied on by Roat)
State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015) (clarified application of prior convictions in criminal-history calculations)
Garcia v. Ball, 303 Kan. 560 (2015) (held motion to correct illegal sentence is proper mechanism to establish error for later malpractice claims)
Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116 (2003) (criminal defendant may sue counsel for malpractice but must obtain postconviction relief first)
State v. Schow, 287 Kan. 529 (2008) (district court may consider PSI criminal-history worksheet as evidence but defendant may object and State must then prove prior convictions)
Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1982) (expiration of sentence can render habeas claims moot absent sufficient collateral consequences)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (presumption of collateral consequences does not apply where appellant challenges only an expired sentence)
Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968) (recognized collateral consequences of conviction may avoid mootness)
St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41 (1943) (mere stigma or abstract injury is insufficient to avoid mootness)