State v. Hayes, 116,717
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
| Writing for the Court | The opinion of the court was delivered by Stegall, J. |
| Citation | 411 P.3d 1225 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael Steven HAYES, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 116,717,116,717 |
| Decision Date | 02 March 2018 |
411 P.3d 1225
STATE of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Michael Steven HAYES, Appellant.
No. 116,717
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 2, 2018
Rex L. Lane, of Lane Law Office LLC, of Atchison, was on the brief for appellant.
Gerald R. Kuckelman, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by Stegall, J.:
In 1994, a jury convicted Michael Steven Hayes of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. The district court sentenced Hayes to life imprisonment for first-degree murder, 102 months' imprisonment for aggravated robbery, and 26 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to commit robbery. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. We affirmed Hayes' convictions on direct appeal. State v. Hayes , 258 Kan. 629, 908 P.2d 597 (1995).
In November 2015, Hayes filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-6801 et seq., precludes a first-time offender from receiving the maximum sentence. He asked the district court to run the aggravated robbery and conspiracy sentences concurrent with life imprisonment and order his release at the next parole hearing. The district court summarily dismissed the motion, finding it was without merit or legal basis.
On appeal and through appointed counsel, Hayes claims the district court was required to hold a hearing on the motion with Hayes present. He contends the failure to do so violated the plain language of K.S.A. 22-3504 and denied him the process he was due under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Questions of statutory interpretation and due process claims are subject to unlimited review. State v. Dunn , 304 Kan. 773, 819, 375 P.3d 332 (2016) ; see State v. Swafford , 306 Kan. 537, 543, 394 P.3d 1188 (2017). We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3). See State v. Bailey , 306 Kan. 393, 394–95, 394 P.3d 831 (2017).
A sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504 when: (1) it is imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) it does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or punishment; or (3) it is ambiguous with respect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...in character or punishment; or (3) it is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served." State v. Hayes , 307 Kan. 537, 538, 411 P.3d 1225 (2018). Williams argues that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to impose lifetime postrelease supervision. The State ......
-
State v. Schulze, 119,184
......[Citation omitted.]" State v. Hayes , 307 Kan. 537, 538, 411 P.3d 1225 (2018).The sentence when imposed was legal.The district court found Schulze's sentence was illegal because it did ......
-
State v. Hayes
...for illegal sentence. The district court denied both motions, and those decisions were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Hayes , 307 Kan. 537, 539, 411 P.3d 1225 (2018) ; Hayes v. State , No. 102,448, 2010 WL 5139930 (Kan. App. 2010) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 291 Kan. 912 (2011).In ......
-
State v. Ford, 119,328
...right to due process was violated is a question of law over which we exercise unlimited review. State v. Hayes , 307 Kan. 537, 538, 411 P.3d 1225 (2018). When reviewing a due process claim, we first determine whether a protected liberty or property interest is involved. If so, we must then ......