Makthepharak v. State

• Citation: 298 Kan. 573,314 P.3d 876
• Decision Date: 27 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 105,932.,105,932.
• Parties: Sashada MAKTHEPHARAK, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

298 Kan. 573

314 P.3d 876

Sashada MAKTHEPHARAK, Appellant,

v.STATE of Kansas, Appellee.

No. 105,932.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Dec. 27, 2013.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A district court should examine a motion to correct an illegal sentence to determine if it raises substantial issues of law or fact. If it does not, the motion may be summarily denied.

2. An appellate court applies a de novo standard of review to a district court's summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22–3504.

3. Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.

4. An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to authorize prosecution of a juvenile as an adult to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision. This court does not review the analysis of the trial court; instead, the standard of review applies to the evidence.

5. Whether the district court correctly construed a pro se pleading is a question of law subject to unlimited review.

6. K.S.A. 22–3504 only applies if a sentence is illegal. A sentence imposed without jurisdiction is an illegal sentence.

7. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction may be attacked at any time and may be vacated because it is a nullity.

8. The jurisdiction of the district court over juvenile offenders in 2001 was based solely upon compliance with the provisions of the Kansas Juvenile Offenders Code, K.S.A. 38–1601 et seq.

9. The standard for evaluating whether a decision to certify a juvenile as an adult was proper in 2001 is whether the decision as a whole is supported by substantial competent evidence. It is not error for a court to give greater weight to some factors than it gives to others. The trial court is not required to give the factors listed in K.S.A. 38–1636(e) equal weight.

10. Pro se pleadings are liberally construed, giving effect to the pleading's content rather than the labels and forms used to articulate the arguments.

11. Under the facts of this case, the district court did not err in summarily denying the defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22–3504.

Carl F.A. Maughan and Catherine A. Zigtema, of Maughan & Maughan LC, of Wichita, were on the brief for appellant.

David Lowden, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek L. Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellees.

The opinion of the court was delivered by NUSS, C.J.:

Sashada Makthepharak appeals denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22–3504. The motion is primarily based on Makthepharak's claim that his sentence was entered by a court without jurisdiction because he was never properly certified for adult prosecution. Our jurisdiction is under K.S.A.2012 Supp. 22–3601(b)(3). See State v. Pennington, 288 Kan. 599, 599, 205 P.3d 741 (2009) (jurisdiction over appeal of motion to correct illegal sentence lies with court that had jurisdiction to hear original appeal).

We reject his arguments and affirm.

Facts

In 2001, the State charged Sashada Makthepharak as a juvenile with alternative counts of first-degree premeditated murder and felony murder, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of criminal possession of a firearm. The charges stemmed from a gang-related home invasion and murder that occurred in Wichita when Makthepharak was 16 years old. Just days earlier he had been released from incarceration for a prior burglary adjudication, which would have been a felony conviction had he been 18 at the time he committed that crime.

The State filed a motion for adult prosecution (MAP), asking the district court to certify Makthepharak as an adult for prosecution of the charges. The district court heard arguments from the State and Makthepharak's appointed counsel on the motion and granted the MAP, stating its reasons on the record. Makthepharak was then tried as an adult and convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, and criminal possession of a firearm. After the district court sentenced Makthepharak to life plus 64 months, he appealed and we affirmed his convictions. See State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 573, 78 P.3d 412 (2003).

In 2010, Makthepharak filed the present motion to correct illegal sentence and moved the district court to appoint counsel. The court considered the motion, ultimately denying it without a substantive hearing or appointment of counsel. Makthepharak appealed.

Analysis

Issue 1: The district court used the proper procedure in denying Makthepharak's motion to correct illegal sentence.

Makthepharak concedes that precedent permits a court's summary denial of a motion under K.S.A. 22–3504. But he asks us to abandon this rule, arguing that both the statute's plain language and fundamental fairness dictate that all movants should be entitled to a hearing and counsel. In the alternative, he argues movants should at least be entitled to the assistance of counsel at the initial examination stage.

The State responds that Makthepharak has failed to provide any persuasive reason why we should reverse the well-established summary procedures. It concludes that a hearing should not be held and counsel should not be appointed until a movant demonstrates that a substantial issue of law or fact exists.

Standard of review

Whether the existing interpretation of a statute should be changed is reviewed de novo. See State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796, 804, 248 P.3d 256 (2011).

Discussion

The statute concerning motions to correct an illegal sentence, K.S.A. 22–3504(1), provides in relevant part:

“The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.... The defendant shall have a right to a hearing, after reasonable notice to be fixed by the court, to be personally present and to have the assistance of counsel in any proceeding for the correction of an illegal sentence.”

For more than 20 years we have instructed district courts considering a motion to correct an illegal sentence to conduct an initial examination of the motion. See State v. Jones, 292 Kan. 910, 913, 257 P.3d 268 (2011) (citing State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 194–96, 946 P.2d 1375 [1997]cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1097, 181 L.Ed.2d 985 (2012); State v. Nunn, 247 Kan. 576, 584–85, 802 P.2d 547 [1990] ). Based on the district court's initial examination, it then “may dismiss a motion to correct an illegal sentence “ ‘without a hearing or appointment of counsel if ... the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief.’ ” [Citations omitted.]” Jones, 292 Kan. at 913, 257 P.3d 268.

As we first stated in Nunn and have reaffirmed numerous times:

“While it would simplify matters for all courts and litigants if we were to adopt a bright-line rule that counsel be appointed for all post-trial motions, such a rule would not appear to be feasible or justified. Obviously, counsel should be appointed in cases where the motion raises substantial questions of law or triable issues of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing, legal arguments, and/or briefs of the parties. It appears just as obvious that if the motion ... fails to state any substantial issues of law or fact, or states sufficient facts to allow a determination based upon the motion itself, then appointment of counsel and the holding of a hearing would be unwarranted.” 247 Kan. at 584–85, 802 P.2d 547.

Accord State v. Conley, 287 Kan. 696, 702, 197 P.3d 837 (2008); State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 195, 946 P.2d 1375 (1997).

We have consistently rejected Makthepharak's argument that the plain language of K.S.A. 22–3504 requires a substantive proceeding and the assistance of counsel in all cases. See, e.g., State v. Heronemus, 294 Kan. 933, 935–36, 281 P.3d 172 (2012). And we have specifically concluded that the statute's protections do not apply when a court summarily denies a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Duke, 263 Kan. at 195–96, 946 P.2d 1375. Makthepharak has made no persuasive argument for why we should revisit, much less abandon, our longstanding interpretation of K.S.A. 22–3504. Accordingly, we decline to do so, which makes the district court's summary approach to his motion appropriate under the statute.

Issue 2: The district court's summary denial of Makthepharak's motion was proper.

Makthepharak asserts two independent reasons why we should reverse the district court's decision to summarily deny his motion under K.S.A. 22–3504. Makthepharak first argues that his sentence is indeed illegal. Second, he argues the court misconstrued his pro se motion, causing it to incorrectly conclude that he is not entitled to relief.

Standards of review

As discussed, the district court properly considered whether Makthepharak's motion to correct illegal sentence should be summarily denied. We have instructed district courts that consideration of motions to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22–3504 are comparable to the procedures under K.S.A. 60–1507. Jones, 292 Kan. at 913, 257 P.3d 268. When faced with a K.S.A. 60–1507 motion, district courts have three options:

“(1) The court may determine that the motion, files, and case records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief and deny the motion summarily; (2) the court may determine from the motion, files, and records that a potentially substantial issue exists, in which case a preliminary hearing may be held. If the court then determines there is no substantial issue, the court may deny the motion; or (3) the court may determine from the motion, files, records, or preliminary hearing that a substantial issue is presented requiring a full hearing.” Fischer v. State, 296 Kan. 808, 822–23, 295 P.3d 560 (2013).

When, as here, the district court summarily denies the motion, we review de novo the motion, records, and files to determine whether they conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief. So we will affirm the district court's...