State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 13 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 122,861,122,861 |
| Citation | 492 P.3d 1190 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Nathaniel L. HILL, Appellant. |
Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, was on the brief for appellant, and Nathaniel L. Hill, appellant pro se, was on the supplemental brief.
Kristafer R. Ailslieger, deputy solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
Nathaniel L. Hill appeals the district court's denial of his motion to modify sentence, where he argues his hard 50 sentence should be modified according to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6628(c). He now also argues that the orally pronounced sentence was incorrect and thus illegal, which requires a remand for clear resentencing to match the journal entry.
Hill was convicted by a jury of capital murder, first-degree murder, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia, and failure to purchase a tax stamp. The facts underlying his convictions can be found in this court's opinion in his direct appeal. State v. Hill , 290 Kan. 339, 340-44, 228 P.3d 1027 (2010). In 2005, the district court ordered a hard 50 life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction, plus 28 months for the drug charges; it deferred sentencing on the capital murder conviction until the constitutionality of that sentence was resolved in State v. Marsh , 278 Kan. 520, 102 P.3d 445 (2004), and Kansas v. Marsh , 548 U.S. 163, 126 S. Ct. 2516, 165 L. Ed. 2d 429 (2006).
When Hill's sentencing resumed in 2008, the State withdrew its notice of intent to seek the death penalty. The district court granted the State's motion to vacate Hill's first-degree murder sentence in accordance with State v. Scott , 286 Kan. 54, 122, 183 P.3d 801 (2008). Sentencing on the remaining capital murder conviction was set for October 2008.
At that subsequent sentencing hearing, there appeared to be some initial confusion on the part of the district court. After clarifying that the purpose of the hearing was to sentence Hill for the capital murder conviction, the district court inquired why they were going to talk about facts in the record to support a hard 50 when "capital murder is life imprisonment without possibility of parole." Both the State and defense counsel corrected the district court, agreeing that upon review of the statute, the mandatory sentence was actually life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 50 years. The district court did not challenge that clarification.
Unfortunately, this correction was not enough to let the district court remain on course. The record goes on to reflect that the district court appeared at times to be confused. But review of the record also shows the district court understood there was only one legal sentence Hill could receive, and it relied on counsel to make sure it imposed that sentence.
After hearing from friends and family of the victims, the district court gave the following ruling:
Immediately after that pronouncement, the State offered that it would not ask for restitution because it did not believe Hill would have any ability to pay "in the 50 years he'll be in prison." The district court did not challenge the State's presumption that Hill could have parole in 50 years.
Like the State, defense counsel also understood Hill was receiving the legal sentence, as shown by this exchange regarding time served:
Likewise, the journal entry of judgment shows a hard 50 sentence: "Life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 50 years." It also states that Hill's "Postrelease Period" is "Life."
In August 2019, Hill filed a pro se motion requesting modification of his sentence pursuant to K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6628(c), on the premise that the court's sentence without benefit of a jury requires resentencing pursuant to the terms of this statute. After receiving supplemental pleadings from both Hill and the State, the district court denied Hill's motion. It is from that denial that he now appeals.
For the first time on appeal, Hill also asserts that his sentence was illegal, providing a second reason this case should be remanded for resentencing. We will address this issue first.
Hill's sentence is not illegal and does not require resentencing.
On appeal, Hill argues that the district court judge pronounced a sentence from the bench of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, which exceeds the authority of K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-4635(a) and is illegal. If correct, it would require resentencing. Hill agrees that the only available sentence is life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 50 years .
Hill's only motion before the district court was not a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the district court did not consider or make a ruling on this argument. In fact, Hill agreed with the State that his motion below should not be construed as a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Regardless, courts have statutory authority to correct an illegal sentence at any time, so an illegal sentence issue may be considered for the first time on appeal. State v. Sartin , 310 Kan. 367, 375, 446 P.3d 1068 (2019).
Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law subject to unlimited review. State v. Donahue , 309 Kan. 265, 267, 434 P.3d 230 (2019). Interpretation of statutes is also a matter of law subject to unlimited review. State v. Jamerson , 309 Kan. 211, 214, 433 P.3d 698 (2019).
An illegal sentence is one that is: imposed by a court without jurisdiction; does not conform to the statutory provision either in the character or the term of the authorized punishment; or is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1) ; State v. Buford , 307 Kan. 73, 74, 405 P.3d 1194 (2017).
As Hill points out and the State concedes, a defendant's sentence becomes final and appealable when the district court pronounces it from the bench, and where the sentence announced from the bench differs from what is later described in the journal entry, the orally pronounced sentence controls. State v. Northern , 304 Kan. 860, 862, 375 P.3d 363 (2016) ; Abasolo v. State , 284 Kan. 299, 304, 160 P.3d 471 (2007).
Hill argues that his sentence, as pronounced at the bench, is illegal because it does not conform to the term authorized by statute. A person convicted of a crime is sentenced in accordance with the sentencing provisions in effect at the time the crime was committed. State v. Overton , 279 Kan. 547, 561, 112 P.3d 244 (2005). The applicable statute for sentencing, in effect at the time Hill committed his crimes, would have been K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 21-4635, which reads in relevant part:
Both parties agree that because the State was not seeking the death penalty, the only available sentence according to the 2002 statute was a hard 50. This is contrasted by the statute in effect at the time Hill was sentenced—but not applicable to his conviction—which mandates that a defendant convicted of an identical crime committed in 2008 would be subject to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. See K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 21-4635(a).
Hill does not argue that there was any ambiguity in the sentence. Rather, he contends that the district court clearly pronounced a sentence which had not yet been authorized by statute at the time Hill committed his crimes. Hill relies solely on the district court saying he would "serve a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole."
The State argues that when taken in context of the larger sentencing hearing, it becomes clear that the district court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 50 years. Both the State and Hill's counsel discussed Hill's parole eligibility after 50 years which the district court acknowledged, and the district court awarded credit for time served at the request of Hill's counsel specifically because he would be eligible for parole after 50 years.
Although it was not addressed by either party, a panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals addressed an identical issue in an unpublished opinion from 2005 when it decided Davidson v. Pryor , No. 112,800, 2015 WL 5224820, at *4 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion).
In Davidson , the defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder which, under the circumstances, mandated a sentence of 25 years to life. The sentence pronounced from the bench was simply a "life sentence," which the panel interpreted as being silent as to the minimum term of imprisonment before the defendant was eligible for parole. However, the journal entry listed the correct sentence reflecting parole eligibility after 25 years. Davidson , 2015 WL 5224820, at *4.
That panel held that both the Kansas Supreme Court and other Court of Appeals pa...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drennan v. State
...649 ; State v. Johnson , 313 Kan. 339, 344-45, 486 P.3d 544 (2021) ; Appleby , 313 Kan. at 357-58, 485 P.3d 1148 ; State v. Hill , 313 Kan. 1010, 1017, 492 P.3d 1190 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Drennan's motion to correct an illegal sentence under ...
-
State v. Juiliano
...(Emphases added.)Juiliano's nonconforming "life without parole" argument is virtually identical to the one made in State v. Hill , 313 Kan. 1010, 1012, 492 P.3d 1190 (2021). In that case, the sentencing judge ordered Hill to serve a hard 50 sentence after he was convicted of capital murder.......
- State v. Thurber