State v. Sims, 114008

In 1995 Essex Sims was convicted of felony murder and aggravated battery; sentencing relied on the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA).
Presentence report included two 1992 juvenile adjudications: theft (scored nonperson) and aggravated assault (scored person).
Sentencing court used a criminal history score including the 1992 aggravated assault as a person felony, which increased Sims' sentencing exposure.
In 2015 Sims filed a K.S.A. 22-3504(1) motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the 1992 adjudication should be classified as a nonperson offense under State v. Murdock.
The district court summarily denied the motion; Sims appealed. While appeal was pending, State v. Keel overruled Murdock on classification methodology.
The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed, holding Keel controls, the legislature may classify pre‑KSGA offenses for sentencing purposes, and summary denial was proper because records conclusively showed no relief was due.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper classification of pre‑KSGA juvenile adjudication as person vs nonperson	Murdock requires classifying pre‑KSGA offenses as nonperson; Sims contends his 1992 aggravated assault should be nonperson	Keel controls and requires comparing to the Kansas statute in effect at time of current offense; sentencing court properly classified it as person	Keel governs; the 1992 adjudication was correctly classified as a person felony
Sixth Amendment / Apprendi challenge to retroactive person/nonperson classification	Reclassification to person crime effectively increases punishment based on facts not found by a jury, violating Apprendi	Legislature may assign person/nonperson status for prior offenses when fixing punishment; this is a legislative sentencing classification, not an Apprendi violation	Rejected; classification is within legislative power to fix punishment and does not trigger Apprendi relief
Right to a hearing on K.S.A. 22-3504(1) motion	Sims claims statute guarantees a hearing and presence with counsel on motion to correct illegal sentence	Records, files, and motion conclusively show no entitlement to relief; no hearing required under precedent	Denial without a hearing was proper because the motion and record conclusively preclude relief

State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 (2014) (held out‑of‑state pre‑KSGA convictions must be classified using pre‑KSGA law)
State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 (2015) (overruled Murdock; classification uses comparable Kansas statute in effect when current crime was committed)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (Sixth Amendment jury‑finding principle relied on by defendant)
State v. Gilbert, 299 Kan. 797 (2014) (standard for appellate review of summary denial of motion to correct illegal sentence)
State v. Gray, 303 Kan. 1011 (2016) (district court may summarily dismiss motion when record conclusively shows no relief)
State v. Vandervort, 276 Kan. 164 (2003) (for criminal history, offenses need only be comparable, not identical)
State v. Sims, 262 Kan. 165 (1997) (Sims’ prior direct appeal affirming convictions)