State v. Sheppard, 444 P.3d 1006

In 2006 a jury convicted Marlon Sheppard of second-degree murder and two counts of criminal possession of a firearm; he was later sentenced to 354 months after a granted departure motion.
Sheppard's direct appeal was affirmed in 2009. He filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 habeas petition in 2011 alleging an unlawful arrest and suppression error; that petition was denied.
In April 2017 Sheppard filed a pro se motion to dismiss challenging probable cause for his arrest and a separate motion seeking leave to file that motion out of time, alleging "excusable neglect" based on trial counsel's failures.
The district court denied leave to file out of time as Sheppard did not show excusable neglect and the claim duplicated his earlier habeas petition; Sheppard appealed.
While that appeal was pending Sheppard filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing a 1994 juvenile adjudication should have decayed under post‑sentencing amendments to K.S.A. 21-6810 and thus not counted in his criminal history; the district court denied relief and Sheppard appealed.
The appeals were consolidated; the court affirmed both denials: (1) no abuse of discretion in refusing late filing for lack of excusable neglect, and (2) the 2016 amendments to juvenile decay rules do not apply retroactively, so the juvenile adjudication properly counted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to file a motion to dismiss out of time	Sheppard: counsel's failure to protect him from pretrial "procedural pitfalls" (ineffective assistance) amounts to excusable neglect justifying an 11‑year late filing	State: Sheppard failed to meet burden to show excusable neglect; claim duplicated earlier habeas petition; extreme delay prejudices interests of justice	No abuse of discretion; Sheppard failed to show excusable neglect and did not justify 11‑year delay
Whether Sheppard's sentence is illegal because a 1994 juvenile adjudication should have decayed under later amendments to K.S.A. 21-6810	Sheppard: the 2016 amendments changed decay rules and should apply retroactively so the juvenile adjudication would not count	State: Criminal statutes operate prospectively absent clear legislative intent for retroactivity; 2016 amendments contain no retroactive language	The 2016 amendments are substantive and not retroactive; juvenile adjudication properly counted in criminal history

Bank of Whitewater v. Decker Investments, Inc., 238 Kan. 308, 710 P.2d 1258 (1985) (standard for reviewing denial of leave to file out of time)
Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co., 302 Kan. 66, 350 P.3d 1071 (2015) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Boyce v. Boyce, 206 Kan. 53, 476 P.2d 625 (1970) (factors for determining excusable neglect)
Jenkins v. Arnold, 223 Kan. 298, 573 P.2d 1013 (1978) (inexcusable conduct vs. ordinary inadvertence)
State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312, 323 P.3d 846 (2014) (how to classify out-of-state pre-1993 crimes for scoring)
State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560, 357 P.3d 251 (2015) (overruling and statutory context referenced)
State v. Denney, 278 Kan. 643, 101 P.3d 1257 (2004) (retroactivity principles in criminal statutes)
State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460, 372 P.3d 1161 (2016) (statutes generally prospective unless clear retroactive intent or purely procedural)
State v. Lee, 304 Kan. 416, 372 P.3d 415 (2016) (standard of review for whether a sentence is illegal)