State v. Bryant, 118,848
Decision Date | 27 November 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 118,848,118,848 |
Citation | 453 P.3d 279 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Timothy C. BRYANT, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Michelle A. Davis, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the briefs for appellant.
Thomas C. Penland, assistant district attorney, Mark A. Dupree, Sr., district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
This case concerns Timothy Bryant's motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because none of Bryant's attacks on his sentence have merit, we affirm the district court judge's decision to deny Bryant's motion.
A Wyandotte County jury convicted Bryant in August 2005 of first-degree murder and aggravated robbery. The district judge found that Bryant's criminal history score was "A" because of five prior person felonies. Three of these person felonies were 1981 Missouri convictions for second-degree burglary. Based on Bryant's criminal history score, the district judge sentenced Bryant to life in prison for first-degree murder and a consecutive 233 months for aggravated robbery.
In June 2014, Bryant filed the motion underlying this appeal. He argued unsuccessfully that his sentence was illegal under State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312, 313, 323 P.3d 846 (2014) ( Murdock I ), which was overruled by State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560, 357 P.3d 251 (2015), the following year.
Before this court, Bryant argues that his sentence is illegal under State v. Wetrich , 307 Kan. 552, 412 P.3d 984 (2018). Specifically, he challenges the classification of his three 1981 Missouri second-degree burglaries as person crimes.
Under K.S.A. 22-3504, a defendant may move to correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving that sentence. See K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(1) ; L. 2019, ch. 59, § 15. A sentence is illegal if it (1) is imposed by a court lacking jurisdiction, (2) fails to conform to the applicable statutory provisions, or (3) is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served. State v. Campbell , 307 Kan. 130, 133, 407 P.3d 240 (2017). Bryant argues that his sentence is illegal because it fails to conform to applicable law.
Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. State v. Neal , 292 Kan. 625, 630, 258 P.3d 365 (2011). Classification of a defendant's prior crimes to determine his or her criminal history score involves interpretation of the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6801 et seq., which is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. Wetrich , 307 Kan. at 555, 412 P.3d 984.
Bryant's first argument is not that his sentence was illegal at the time it was imposed. Rather, he argues that subsequent changes in the law have rendered his sentence illegal. The illegal sentence statute itself and recent decisions from this court foreclose his challenge.
In April 2019, this court decided State v. Murdock , 309 Kan. 585, 591, 439 P.3d 307 (2019) ( Murdock II ), where we held:
The next month, our Legislature echoed the Murdock II holding by amending the illegal sentence statute, K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504(3), to read:
Our Legislature stated that these amendments were "procedural in nature" and "shall be construed and applied retroactively." L. 2019, ch. 59, § 15. The amendment went into effect on May 23, 2019.
This court made the next relevant move, deciding in State v. Weber , 309 Kan. 1203, 1209, 442 P.3d 1044 (2019), that " Wetrich was a change in the law as contemplated by Murdock II " and therefore inapplicable to sentences finalized before Wetrich was decided. Weber , 309 Kan. at 1209, 442 P.3d 1044. The Weber holding dooms Bryant's Wetrich argument.
Bryant also argues that his sentence is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000) ; Descamps v. United States , 570 U.S. 254, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 186 L. Ed. 2d 438 (2013) ; and Mathis v. United States , 579 U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 195 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2016). He asserts the district judge unconstitutionally engaged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Clark
...Like the legality of a sentence, statutory interpretation is a question of law over which we have unlimited review. State v. Bryant , 310 Kan. 920, 921, 453 P.3d 279 (2019). The Law in Effect in 2005 Applies in Determining the Legality of Clark's Sentence The Court of Appeals, in Clark II ,......
-
State v. Lyon
...provision, Lyon may not use a motion to correct an illegal sentence to argue that his sentence is unconstitutional. State v. Bryant , 310 Kan. 920, 922, 453 P.3d 279 (2019). Accordingly, we decline to reach the merits of Lyon's constitutional claim. Having determined that the identical-or-n......
-
State v. Smith, No. 118,042
...350 P.3d 1054 (2015), he is prohibited from making such a claim in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See State v. Bryant , 310 Kan. 920, 922-23, 453 P.3d 279, 281 (2019). In Bryant , the defendant claimed his sentence was illegal, arguing his 2005 sentence was unconstitutional under ......
-
State v. Coleman, No. 120,246
...(2005). Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which appellate courts likewise have unlimited review. State v. Bryant , 310 Kan. 920, 921, 453 P.3d 279 (2019).Sentence Enhancement Based on Judicial Fact-findingWhen Coleman was resentenced in 2001 following remand by this cour......