State v. Trotter
295 P.3d 1039
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Trotter, proceeding pro se, seeks to correct an illegal sentence after conviction for capital murder.
- He argues the information failed to list both victims, Huff and Wallace, constituting a defective charging document.
- The district court denied the motion summarily as a collateral attack on the conviction, not a sentence issue.
- This court previously held capital and first-degree murder convictions were multiplicitous, and that defective-complaint claims are not raised via 22-3504.
- Trotter also pursued a 60-1507 motion in prior appellate proceedings, and this appeal concerns whether the current filing can be treated as a 60-1507 motion.
- The court affirms the district court’s denial, holding 22-3504 cannot reverse a conviction and 60-1507 is time-barred and inappropriate here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 22-3504 allows collaterally attacking a conviction. | Trotter contends the complaint was jurisdictionally defective. | State argues 22-3504 remedies only illegal sentences, not convictions. | Not permitted; 22-3504 cannot reverse a conviction. |
| Whether defective complaint claims may be raised under 22-3504. | Trotter asserts a jurisdictional defect in the complaint. | Defective-complaint claims fall outside 22-3504. | Claims about a defective complaint are not properly raised under 22-3504. |
| Whether the motion can be treated as a 60-1507 post- conviction motion. | Trotter seeks relief under 60-1507 as an alternative. | 60-1507 not applicable due to successive filing and lack of manifest injustice. | Rejected; successive and time-barred under 60-1507(f)(1)-(f)(2). |
| Whether subject-matter jurisdiction defects can be raised any time via 60-1507. | Jurisdictional issues may be raised at any time. | No proper post-conviction vehicle exists here. | Jurisdictional challenges require appropriate post-conviction procedure; not available here. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sims, 294 Kan. 821 (2012) (22-3504 not vehicle for collateral attack on conviction)
- State v. Nash, 281 Kan. 600 (2006) (defective complaint claims outside 22-3504 scope)
- State v. Harsh, 293 Kan. 585 (2011) (definition of an illegal sentence; jurisdictional limits)
- State v. LaBelle, 290 Kan. 529 (2010) (illegality/interpretation of sentence terms)
- State v. Williams, 283 Kan. 492 (2007) (22-3504 not for conviction challenges)
- State v. Davis, 281 Kan. 169 (2006) (competency-related jurisdictional issues in sentencing)