State v. Swafford – Johnson – Affirmed

Background

In 1993 Artis Swafford was convicted of felony murder and aggravated robbery; judge imposed life and 15-years-to-life sentences to run consecutively to each other and to prior sentences in Saline and Geary counties.
Swafford’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal; he filed multiple prior K.S.A. 22-3504 motions (2001, 2006, 2010) that were denied.
In 2014 Swafford filed a fourth K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to correct an illegal sentence; the Saline County district court summarily denied it on Sept. 23, 2014.
Swafford filed a motion for additional findings (and requested rehearing); the court denied that motion without a hearing on Oct. 31, 2014, and canceled a scheduled hearing.
Swafford appealed on Nov. 4, 2014. The Supreme Court considered (1) whether the appeal was timely; (2) whether the consecutive sentencing was ambiguous or unlawful; and (3) whether canceling the hearing denied due process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal from 22-3504 denial	Swafford implied his appeal was timely after filing additional findings motion	State argued no notice of appeal filed within 14 days, thus untimely	Appeal timely: 30-day appeal period (civil rule) tolled by timely motion for additional findings/rehearing; Swafford filed within tolled period
Ambiguity of consecutive sentencing	Swafford: oral pronouncement didn’t identify county for case 92-CR-1286 so sentence ambiguous	State: oral pronouncement and journal entry identify same prior case number; no duplicate case number exists	Not ambiguous: reference to case number combined with record made identity clear; sentence lawful
Authority to run current sentence consecutive to prior probationary misdemeanor sentence	Swafford: court could not run sentence consecutive to Geary County matter while probation revocation pending	State: underlying sentence for probation already exists; court may order consecutive sentences to underlying sentence	Court may order consecutive to underlying sentence even if revocation pending; Bell does not prohibit but considered different circumstances
Summary denial and cancellation of hearing (due process)	Swafford: denial of hearing on additional findings violated due process	State: court may summarily deny 22-3504 motions when records show no relief; findings addressed objections	No due process violation: courts may summarily deny 22-3504 motions and assess adequacy of findings without a hearing when records suffice

Key Cases Cited

Abasolo v. State, 284 Kan. 299 (2007) (sentence effective when pronounced; journal entry cannot alter pronounced sentence)
State v. Trotter, 296 Kan. 898 (2013) (defines when a sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504)
State v. Hoge, 283 Kan. 219 (2007) (district court may summarily deny motions to correct sentence when records conclusively show no relief)
State v. Gilbert, 299 Kan. 797 (2014) (illegality of a sentence is a question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Reed, 237 Kan. 685 (1985) (cannot impose consecutive sentence to a case where defendant has not been convicted or sentenced)
State v. Bell, 6 Kan. App. 2d 573 (1981) (distinguishes running sentences consecutive to existing parole/probation-related underlying sentences)
State v. Barnes, 37 Kan. App. 2d 136 (2007) (procedural treatment of 22-3504 motions analogous to 60-1507; appeal timing guidance)