State v. Campbell, 114,814

Decision Date15 December 2017
Docket NumberNo. 114,814,114,814
Parties STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kenyon T. CAMPBELL, Appellant.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Carl Maughan, of Maughan Law Group, of Wichita, was on the brief for appellant.

Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

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

In 1996, Kenyon T. Campbell was convicted of first-degree murder, an off-grid crime under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), and multiple on-grid crimes. When the district court sentenced Campbell for his on-grid crimes, the court classified several out-of-state convictions as person felonies for purposes of computing Campbell's criminal history score. In 2015, Campbell moved to correct what he claimed was an illegal sentence under State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312, 319, 323 P.3d 846 (2014) (all pre-1993 out-of-state convictions must be classified as nonperson felonies when calculating a defendant's criminal history score), overruled by State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560, 357 P.3d 251 (2015), cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 865, 193 L.Ed.2d 761 (2016). The district court summarily denied relief, and Campbell appealed.

We reject each claim of error asserted on appeal and affirm. Specifically, we hold: (1) Campbell is not entitled to have his out-of-state convictions classified as nonperson offenses under Murdock, which was overruled by Keel ; (2) application of Keel to Campbell's motion does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution; (3) the KSGA's person/nonperson classification of pre-KSGA offenses presents a question of law and does not require factfinding that implicates the right to a jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (4) the district court did not deprive Campbell of a statutory right to a hearing when it summarily denied relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A jury convicted Campbell of committing, or participating in the commission of, several offenses in Sedgwick County on March 22, 1996: first-degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated criminal sodomy, kidnapping, attempted rape, attempted kidnapping, and two counts of aggravated robbery. Campbell entered into a sentencing agreement with the State in which he agreed to be sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder and to 300 months for aggravated kidnapping, with the 300 months to run concurrent with the life sentence. Campbell and the State further agreed to postpone sentencing on the remaining counts in order to allow Campbell to fulfill his agreement to cooperate in locating Ronald Etheridge, who was also accused of being involved in the crimes, and to testify truthfully at Etheridge's trial. If Campbell fulfilled his part of the agreement, the State committed to recommending a downward durational departures on the sentences that had yet to be imposed.

Consistent with the agreement, the district court sentenced Campbell to life in prison for the first-degree murder and to 300 months for the aggravated kidnapping conviction. The court took sentencing on the other counts under advisement. In 2000, more than three years after the original sentencing hearing and after Campbell refused to testify at Etheridge's trial, the district court imposed sentence on the remaining counts: 77 months for the aggravated sodomy conviction, 51 months for each aggravated robbery conviction, 51 months for the kidnapping conviction, 19 months for the attempted rape conviction, and 34 months for the attempted aggravated kidnapping conviction. The district court ordered each of these sentences to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to his prior sentence for aggravated kidnapping.

In sentencing Campbell on each of the convictions covered by the KSGA sentencing grid, the district court considered Campbell's criminal history as scored on the presentence investigation report (PSI). The PSI reported that Campbell had six prior Illinois convictions. Four of those convictions—convictions for attempted robbery, aggravated battery with a gun, and two counts of armed violence—were classified as person felonies on the PSI. Two Illinois drug offenses were classified as nonperson felonies. With these classifications, Campbell had a criminal history score of A. At the time of sentencing, Campbell did not dispute his criminal history score.

Campbell appealed, challenging his convictions and the district court's jurisdiction to impose those sentences that had not been announced at the first sentencing hearing. This court affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Campbell, 273 Kan. 414, 44 P.3d 349 (2002). In his direct appeal, Campbell did not challenge the calculation of his criminal history.

Moving forward to 2014, this court decided Murdock, and Campbell soon thereafter filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argued his criminal history score should have been calculated based on all of his Illinois convictions being considered nonperson felonies. The district court denied his motion without a hearing. The district court refused to apply Murdock retroactively and concluded Campbell had waived any objections to his criminal history and was making an impermissible collateral attack.

Campbell requested and received permission to docket his appeal out of time with the Court of Appeals. The case was transferred to this court under Administrative Order 101, which allows transfers to the appellate court with exclusive jurisdiction under Kansas statutes. See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3) ("Any appeal permitted to be taken from a district court's final judgment in a criminal case shall be taken directly to the supreme court in the following cases: ... [3] any case in which a maximum sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed ..." unless the case falls within one of several exceptions, which do not include first-degree murder.); Kirtdoll v. State, 306 Kan. 335, 337, 393 P.3d 1053 (2017) ("A ruling on a motion to correct an illegal sentence, where the sentence imposed for a homicide is imprisonment for life, is directly appealable to this court.").

ANALYSIS

Campbell challenges his sentence as illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504(1), which allows for correction of an illegal sentence at any time. Under this broad language, a challenge to a defendant's criminal history can be raised on a motion to correct an illegal sentence even if no challenge was stated at the time of the sentencing. Keel, 302 Kan. at 571, 357 P.3d 251.

In order to be considered illegal, a sentence must either (1) have been "imposed by a court without jurisdiction"; (2) fail to "conform to the [applicable] statutory provisions"; or (3) be "ambiguous with respect to [the] time and manner in which it is to be served." State v. Sims, 306 Kan. 618, 620, 395 P.3d 413 (2017) ; see L. 2017, ch. 62, § 9 (codifying definition). The determination of whether a sentence meets one of these criteria presents an issue of law, which this court reviews de novo. State v. Collins, 303 Kan. 472, 473, 362 P.3d 1098 (2015).

With these general principles in mind, we turn to Campbell's four arguments.

1. Campbell is not entitled to resentencing based on Murdock.

Campbell first asserts his sentence is illegal because his criminal history was scored in a manner that is inconsistent with Murdock, which held all out-of-state pre-1993 crimes must be classified for criminal history purposes as nonperson felonies.

Murdock, 299 Kan. at 319, 323 P.3d 846. Campbell recognizes that, after the district court proceedings in this case, this court overruled Murdock in Keel by holding that "a pre-KSGA conviction and/or adjudication must be classified as either a person or nonperson offense by comparing the criminal statute under which the prior offense arose to the comparable post-KSGA criminal statute." (Emphasis added.) Keel, 302 Kan. at 581, 357 P.3d 251. We further held "the comparable post-KSGA criminal statute is the one that was in effect at the time the current crime of conviction was committed." 302 Kan. at 581, 357 P.3d 251.

Campbell does not argue that the computation of his criminal history score is illegal under Keel. Rather, despite our decision in Keel, Campbell asks us to apply Murdock, which would be more favorable to him. But "[t]he general rule in Kansas is that an overruling decision is applied to all similar cases pending as of the date of the overruling decision, regardless of when the cause of action accrued." Sims, 306 Kan. at 622, 395 P.3d 413 ; State v. Collier, 306 Kan. 521, 525, 394 P.3d 1164 (2017). This means Keel, not Murdock, controls the outcome of Campbell's motion to correct an illegal sentence.

In addition, Campbell "respectfully sug[g]ests this matter should be reconsidered and therefore respectfully submits the arguments in support of the reversal of the district court's decision on this case based upon Murdock, in order to preserve the arguments and issues for future review." We take this as a request that we reconsider Keel. But, as we will more fully discuss, Campbell does not present any arguments that persuade us Keel was wrongly decided, especially in light of recent decisions in which we have reaffirmed Keel and its analysis. See Sims, 306 Kan. at 620–22, 395 P.3d 413 ; Collier, 306 Kan. at 522, 524–26, 394 P.3d 1164.

Murdock does not control this appeal, and Campbell is not entitled to relief under the holding in Keel.

We pause to note that the 2017 Kansas Legislature amended K.S.A. 22-3504 so that it now provides: "A sentence is not an ‘illegal sentence’ because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced." L. 2017, ch. 62, § 9. But this provision and its potential impact on this case were not discussed in the parties' briefs, which were filed before the legislation became effective. See L. 2017, ch. 62, § 13. Given that, we proceed with our analysis without consideration of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Pollman
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • May 10, 2019
    ...as challenges to the legality of the sentences. See State v. Sturgis , 307 Kan. 565, 572, 412 P.3d 997 (2018) ; State v. Campbell , 307 Kan. 130, 133, 407 P.3d 240 (2017). We do the same. SHOULD POLLMAN'S 2011 CONVICTION FOR A NONEXISTENT OFFENSE BE USED IN HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORE ?We fi......
  • State v. Redding
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 12, 2019
    ...examination of the motion to determine whether substantial questions of law or fact are raised by a motion." State v. Campbell , 307 Kan. 130, 137, 407 P.3d 240 (2017). Redding propounds no persuasive argument for our discontinuing that long-time practice.The issue of whether the district c......
  • State v. Jackson
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 8, 2021
    ...by Richardson 's interpretation under our general rule.Third, Richardson has no ex post facto effect on Jackson. State v. Campbell , 307 Kan. 130, 135, 407 P.3d 240 (2017) ("Relying on statutes in effect at the time a crime is committed eliminates the need for an ex post facto analysis."). ......
  • State v. Bryant, 118,848
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • November 27, 2019
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Appellate Decisions
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 87-4, April 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...K.S.A. 22-3504. ISSUE: Motion to correct an illegal sentence HELD: Hayes' statutory argument is defeated by holding in State v. Campbell, 307 Kan. 130 (2017), that a district court's preliminary examination of a motion to correct an illegal sentence does not trigger the movant's right to be......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT