State v. Baldwin, 75016
| Decision Date | 20 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 75016,75016 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Ronald BALDWIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An illegal sentence includes a sentence which does not conform to statutory provisions either in character or in the term of punishment authorized. A court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.
2. Where a defendant is convicted on several counts of an information, the judge should pronounce a single judgment declaring the full measure of punishment to be imposed for all such offenses.
3. Under the facts of this case, where the parties agreed to a controlling sentence of 60 months but the original sentence was an illegal sentence, the district court did not err in resentencing the defendant on each count to arrive at a controlling sentence of 57 months.
Joseph P. Huerter, of Tenopir & Huerter, Topeka, for appellant.
Michael F. McElhinney, Assistant District Attorney, Joan M. Hamilton, District Attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GREEN, P.J., ROYSE, J., and JENNIFER JONES, District Judge, Assigned.
Ronald Baldwin appeals his sentence for four counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. We affirm.
Ronald Baldwin was charged with four counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and three counts of aggravated assault for acts committed on March 31, 1995. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Baldwin pleaded no contest to the four counts of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer in exchange for the dismissal of the three counts of aggravated assault. Baldwin's convictions and criminal history placed him in a 6-I box on the sentencing grid with a presumptive sentence of 17 to 19 months for each count. Because Baldwin used a firearm to commit the offenses, his presumptive sentence was imprisonment.
The plea agreement between Baldwin and the State called for a controlling sentence of 60 months. At sentencing, the prosecutor advised the court that the agreement could be accomplished by imposing a sentence of 20 monthsfor each count--three counts to run consecutively and one count to run concurrent with the other three. The court accepted the agreement and sentenced Baldwin accordingly. The court noted that aggravating factors justified a durational departure for each of the counts.
The parties and the court later agreed that Baldwin's sentence violated K.S.A. 21-4720(b)(4), which provides that the total controlling sentence cannot exceed twice the base sentence. Baldwin's total controlling sentence (60 months) exceeded twice his base sentence (20 months). Baldwin filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, and the court resentenced Baldwin on July 7, 1995. The district court increased the base sentence to 38 months and reduced the sentences on the remaining three counts to 19 months. The court ordered the first and second counts to run consecutively and the remaining two counts to run concurrent with the first two. This gave Baldwin a total controlling sentence of 57 months. During resentencing, the court reiterated its previous findings justifying a departure as to each count.
On appeal, Baldwin argues that the district court erred in increasing his base sentence. Before turning to the merits, however, we first must consider the State's argument that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
K.S.A. 21-4721(c)(2) precludes appellate review of "any sentence resulting from an agreement between the state and the defendant which the sentencing court approves on the record." The statute does not preclude review of the resentencing issue raised here.
Baldwin acknowledges that the sentence originally imposed was illegal. An illegal sentence includes any sentence which does not conform to statutory provisions either in character or in the term of punishment authorized. State v. Zirkle, 15...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Snow, No. 93,749.
...factors previously found to increase the total consecutive sentence pursuant to K.S.A.2005 Supp. 21-4720. State v. Baldwin, 24 Kan.App.2d 12, 14, 941 P.2d 422 (1997). Accordingly, we vacate Snow's sentence and remand this matter to the district court for Snow raises several other issues reg......
-
State v. Snow
...received under the "double-double" rule. See Kansas Sentencing Guidelines, Desk Reference Manual, pp. 48-49 (2007). State v. Baldwin, 24 Kan.App.2d 12, 941 P.2d 422 (1997), presents a similar factual situation. In Baldwin, the defendant pled no contest to four counts of aggravated assault o......
-
State v. Beard
...counts and change the base sentence to increase the total consecutive sentence. 282 Kan. at 342. Our court held in State v. Baldwin, 24 Kan.App.2d 12, 13, 941 P.3d 422 (1997), that if the original sentence is illegal because the controlling term violated the maximum consecutive sentence all......