State v. Taylor
299 Kan. 5
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Sherwin Taylor was convicted in case No. 87 CR 1120 of aggravated robbery and first-degree murder for crimes on or about July 15, 1987; sentenced March 31, 1988 to 15 years to life and life, ordered consecutive to each other and to sentence in case No. 87 CR 412.
- Taylor pleaded guilty in 87 CR 412 to two felonies on August 27, 1987, and was sentenced in that case on April 5, 1988 (after the 87 CR 1120 sentencing).
- In 2011, over 23 years after sentencing, Taylor filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence (K.S.A. 22-3504) arguing (1) a speedy trial violation deprived the court of jurisdiction, and (2) the court improperly ordered his sentences to run consecutive to sentences not yet imposed in 87 CR 412.
- The State argued the speedy-trial claim attacks the conviction (not the sentence) and therefore is not cognizable under K.S.A. 22-3504; the State also argued K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-4608(4) required consecutive sentences if Taylor was on release for felonies in 87 CR 412 when he committed the crimes in 87 CR 1120.
- The district court summarily denied Taylor’s motion by adopting the State’s reply; Taylor appealed. The appellate court reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a speedy-trial violation can be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence | Taylor: speedy-trial violation deprived court of jurisdiction to sentence | State: speedy-trial claim attacks conviction and is not cognizable under K.S.A. 22-3504 | Held: Not cognizable; claim attacks conviction, not sentence, so summary denial affirmed |
| Whether sentencing court erred by ordering sentences to run consecutive to sentences not yet imposed in another case | Taylor: sentencing order is illegal because it made sentences consecutive to nonexisting sentence in 87 CR 412 | State: even if timing was off, K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-4608(4) required consecutive sentences if Taylor was on release in 87 CR 412 when offenses occurred | Held: Trial court erred under State v. Reed to order consecutivity to a nonexisting sentence; summary denial improper because record is inconclusive whether statute required consecutivity; remanded for fact-finding |
| Whether K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-4608(4) applied | Taylor: (implied) consecutive order was invalid because 87 CR 412 sentence did not exist yet | State: statute mandates consecutive service if crimes committed while on release for a felony | Held: Application depends on whether Taylor was on release in 87 CR 412 when crimes occurred; remand for determination |
| Whether Taylor was entitled to appointed counsel under K.S.A. 22-3504 | Taylor raised this claim on appeal | State: not addressed as dispositive below | Held: Unnecessary to decide given remand; appointment-of-counsel claim left unaddressed by court |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Trotter, 296 Kan. 898 (2013) (K.S.A. 22-3504 is limited to correcting illegal sentences and cannot be used to challenge convictions)
- State v. Reed, 237 Kan. 685 (1985) (trial court cannot order a sentence to run consecutive to a sentence not yet imposed)
- State v. Adams, 283 Kan. 365 (2007) (speedy-trial violations are remedied by reversing convictions)
- State v. Neal, 292 Kan. 625 (2011) (defendant bears the burden to designate the record when seeking postconviction relief)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions for the district court to determine whether Taylor was on release in 87 CR 412 when the crimes in 87 CR 1120 were committed and to proceed accordingly.