State v. Thomas
383 P.3d 152
Kan. Ct. App.2016Background
- Randy D. Thomas was convicted of second-degree murder in 2002 and sentenced within the presumptive range based on a criminal-history score that included a 1990 juvenile burglary adjudication scored as "Burglary (Building Used As a Dwelling)" and treated as a person felony.
- The PSI listed the 1990 adjudication with the dwelling label; Thomas’ counsel did not object when asked whether they controverted the PSI.
- In 2015 Thomas filed a K.S.A. 22-3504(1) motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the 1990 juvenile burglary was misclassified as a person offense (dwelling), which—under Apprendi/Descamps/Dickey—required jury finding and thus produced an illegal sentence.
- The district court summarily dismissed the motion; the appellate majority reversed, holding the classification violated Apprendi as applied in Dickey and remanding for reclassification, recalculation of criminal history, and resentencing.
- The State argued procedural bars (waiver, invited error, res judicata, retroactivity) and that K.S.A. 22-3504 was an improper vehicle for a constitutional claim; the court rejected those bars on the facts and precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas waived or invited error by not disputing the PSI at sentencing | No personal, knowing waiver of jury-rights occurred; counsel’s silence didn’t establish waiver of Apprendi rights | Failure to controvert PSI and statements in sentencing constitute a waiver/stipulation barring collateral attack | No waiver/invited error; silence by counsel did not establish Thomas personally waived jury rights; Dickey/Hankins controlling |
| Whether res judicata or collateral-procedure bars a K.S.A. 22-3504 challenge now | Motion to correct illegal sentence may be brought at any time; statutory exception to res judicata | Multiple appeals and finality preclude collateral attack | Res judicata does not bar a K.S.A. 22-3504 claim alleging an illegal sentence |
| Whether Dickey/Apprendi analysis may be applied despite Thomas’ sentence being final pre-Dickey | Apprendi-based rule applies and Dickey is an application of Apprendi/Descamps; retroactivity not an obstacle | Dickey should not apply retroactively to cases final before it | Applying Apprendi (via Dickey) is permissible; the relevant constitutional rule is Apprendi, so it applies |
| Whether K.S.A. 22-3504 is the proper procedural vehicle for this constitutional challenge | A criminal-history misclassification renders the sentence illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504(1) (sentence does not conform to statutory punishment) | K.S.A. 22-3504 is not proper for constitutional claims | K.S.A. 22-3504 is appropriate for challenging criminal-history misclassification that yields an illegal sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum—other than prior convictions—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (framework for determining whether prior offenses can be treated categorically for sentence-enhancing purposes)
- State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015) (applied Apprendi/Descamps to criminal-history classifications; held classification as person felony based on unproven dwelling element violated defendant’s rights)
- State v. Hankins, 304 Kan. 226 (2016) (clarified that stipulation to criminal history does not bar later legal challenges to classification; distinguished factual existence challenges)
- State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394 (2001) (Apprendi rule must be applied to cases not final as of Apprendi decision)