State v. Vasquez, 371 P.3d 946

Petitioner Pete D. Vasquez pleaded guilty in 2012 to aggravated escape (severity level 5 nonperson felony) and accepted a PSI that listed four 1978 burglaries (classified as person felonies) and a 1982 attempted robbery (person felony).
At sentencing Vasquez stipulated to a criminal history score of “A,” received a durational departure sentence of 65 months, and did not appeal.
Vasquez later filed two motions to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1), arguing his pre‑1993 burglary and robbery convictions were misclassified as person felonies, relying on Descamps and Apprendi and state decisions applying them.
The district court summarily denied both motions; Vasquez appealed. The State argued procedural bars (waiver, res judicata, retroactivity) and contended a 22‑3504 motion was not the proper vehicle per State v. Warrior.
The Court of Appeals found no procedural bar, held Dickey II (application of Apprendi/Descamps to Kansas criminal‑history classification) controls the burglary issues, vacated Vasquez’s sentence, and remanded for reclassification, recalculation of criminal history, and resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Vasquez waived challenge to classification by stipulating at sentencing	Vasquez: stipulation to existence of convictions does not waive later legal challenge to how they are classified for criminal history	State: failure to object at sentencing/direct appeal waives claim	Held: No waiver; Dickey II rejects waiver for classification challenges under K.S.A. 22‑3504(1)
Whether res judicata bars the 22‑3504 motion	Vasquez: statutory "at any time" remedy avoids res judicata for illegal‑sentence claims	State: issues should have been raised on direct appeal	Held: Res judicata does not bar 22‑3504 motions challenging illegal sentences
Whether Dickey II applies retroactively to a final sentence	Vasquez: Apprendi/Descamps principles apply and Dickey II is application of those constitutional rules	State: Dickey II is a change in law and should not apply retroactively	Held: Dickey II applies (not an impermissible retroactive change) because it applies Apprendi/Descamps constitutional rule
Whether a 22‑3504 motion is the proper vehicle given Warrior	Vasquez: challenge targets misclassification of prior convictions (affecting sentence conformity), not statute constitutionality	State: Warrior bars using 22‑3504 to challenge constitutionality of sentencing procedures/statutes	Held: 22‑3504 is proper here because claim alleges misclassification of priors produced an illegal sentence

Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (limits judicial factfinding about prior convictions that increases sentences under Apprendi framework)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact other than prior conviction that increases penalty must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 (2015) (application of Apprendi/Descamps to criminal‑history classification; misclassifying prior burglary as person felony violates Sixth Amendment)
State v. Warrior, 303 Kan. 1008 (2016) (motion to correct illegal sentence is not the proper vehicle to challenge constitutionality of a sentence in some contexts)
State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312 (2014) (held out‑of‑state pre‑KSGA crimes must be nonperson for criminal history purposes)
State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560 (2015) (overruled Murdock; classification must be based on comparable in‑state offense as of time of current conviction)
State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549 (2015) (definition and review of illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22‑3504)