State v. Lofton, 85,434.
| Decision Date | 19 October 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 85,434.,85,434. |
| Citation | 32 P.3d 711,272 Kan. 216 |
| Parties | STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JACKIE PAUL LOFTON, JR., Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Cory Riddle, assistant appellate defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, chief appellate defender, were on the brief for appellant.
Craig D. Kershner, county attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
In 1984, Jackie Lofton was convicted by jury trial of rape (K.S.A. 21-3502 [Ensley 1981]), kidnapping (K.S.A. 21-3420 [Ensley 1981]), and battery (K.S.A. 21-3412 [Ensley 1981]), two class B felonies and one class B misdemeanor, respectively, for which he received two 15-years to life sentences plus 6 months in the county jail. All sentences were to run consecutively. His convictions were affirmed by this court on December 6, 1985, in an unpublished opinion, State v. Lofton, No. 57,500.
On February 11, 2000, defendant filed a pro se motion entitled "Motion of Nunc Pro Tunc Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504(1)" in which he contends his jail time credits had been improperly computed. He contends that a credit of the 7 months and 2 days he spent in jail awaiting trial on these charges should have been credited to the sentence imposed on each of the two felonies, for a total of 14 months and 4 days credit on his aggregate prison sentences. In denying relief under the motion, the district court held that no relief could be granted under K.S.A. 22-3504(1), which provides:
The basis for this determination was that there was no claim that either sentence was illegal. The sentences of 15 years to life on each of the two felonies, running consecutively, were lawful sentences. Defendant's only complaint concerns the amount of jail time which was credited to his lawful sentences. We agree with the district court.
We have defined an illegal sentence as a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction, a sentence which does not conform to the statutory provision, either in character or the term of punishment authorized, or a sentence which is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served. State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 194, 946 P.2d 1375 (1997). On its face the motion filed herein clearly shows there was no claim of illegal sentence, but rather a claim that insufficient jail time was credited against the sentence imposed. There is, accordingly, no error in the district court's summary denial of the motion herein without affording the defendant a hearing, his personal presence at the hearing, and appointment of counsel as provided by K.S.A. 22-3504(1).
The district court further held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...of an illegal sentence that a defendant can raise at any time under K.S.A. 22-3504(1). Smith , 2016 WL 2609643, at *3(citing State v. Lofton , 272 Kan. 216, Syl. ¶ 1, 32 P.3d 711 [2001] ).Second, the panel concluded both substantive and procedural deficiencies prevented treating the motion ......
-
State v. Davis
...21-4614 contains no provision for credit in excess of the time an individual is actually incarcerated in jail." State v. Lofton , 272 Kan. 216, 217-18, 32 P.3d 711 (2001). Accordingly, when consecutive sentences are imposed for multiple crimes the defendant's time in custody can only be awa......
-
State v. Mitchell
...No. 101,919, 2010 WL 2044939, at *2 (Kan.App.) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 290 Kan. 1097 (2010); but see State v. Lofton, 272 Kan. 216, 217, 32 P.3d 711 (2001) (attack on computation of jail credit not a claim of an illegal sentence); State v. Muldrow, No. 107,291, 2013 WL 1149704, a......
-
State v. Dunn
...that the amount of jail time credit was improperly computed does not constitute a claim of an illegal sentence. See State v. Lofton, 272 Kan. 216, 217, 32 P.3d 711 (2001). Nevertheless, in the present case Dunn timely appealed from his sentence. Hence, this issue is properly before this cou......
-
Appellate Decisions
...of sentence, qualifying jail-credit order to time spent "in custody in this case," arguably was ambiguous, under rule in State v. Lofton, 272 Kan. 216 (2001), the jail credit already had been "used up" by being awarded in a prior consecutive case. STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 8-1568(b)(1), -......