State v. Moncla
| Decision Date | 06 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 110,549. |
| Citation | 301 Kan. 549,343 P.3d 1161 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. David MONCLA, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Carl F.A. Maughan, of Maughan Law Group LC, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
David Moncla appeals the district court's summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.
In May 1995, a jury convicted David Moncla of first-degree murder. Based on the evidence presented at trial, which included the fact that the murder victim had been struck in the head with a claw hammer at least 18 times, the district court judge found that the murder had been committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner—an aggravating factor under K.S.A.1994 Supp. 21–4636. The district judge imposed a hard 40 life sentence as a result. Because Moncla had not yet seen receipts supporting a requested restitution amount, the district judge gave the parties 30 days to determine restitution and said that he would hold a hearing if there was a dispute over the restitution amount. By way of a journal entry filed nearly 5 months later, the district judge set amounts for restitution and court costs. This court affirmed Moncla's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 936 P.2d 727 (1997).
In January 2013, Moncla filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence. In the motion, Moncla claimed his sentence was illegal because: (1) insufficient evidence supported the district judge's finding of an aggravating factor supporting imposition of a hard 40 life sentence; (2) the district judge “intentionally structured defendant's case through bias, improper and legally unsound rulings, to ensure [Moncla] received a Hard–Forty year sentence in violation of [his] due process rights”; (3) the district judge lacked jurisdiction to sentence defendant because his right to a fair trial and due process rights were violated; and (4) the district judge lacked jurisdiction to impose restitution, court costs, and other fees.
Moncla's motion was summarily denied, and Moncla took a timely appeal to this court.
We recently stated the applicable standards of review in State v. Gilbert, 299 Kan. 797, 326 P.3d 1060 (2014).
When presented with a motion to correct illegal sentence, a district judge should conduct an initial examination of the motion to determine if it raises substantial issues of law or fact. Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573, 576, 314 P.3d 876 (2013). If it does not, i.e., if the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief, the motion may be denied summarily without a hearing or appointment of counsel. 298 Kan. at 576, 314 P.3d 876.
Moncla invites this court to reconsider its longstanding precedent that allows a district judge to deny a motion to correct illegal sentence summarily if it fails to state any substantial issues of law or fact. Moncla argues that the plain language of the statute and public policy are on his side. This court has consistently rejected Moncla's plain language argument, see Makthepharak, 298 Kan. at 576, 314 P.3d 876, and we do so again today.
Moncla's public policy argument suggests that many motions to correct illegal sentence “that have merit are often lost in the sea of motions that may not have merit.” He appears to believe that the remedy for this situation would be a ruling from this court requiring a hearing and appointment of counsel for all such motions, which would give the legislature an incentive to change the wording of the statute to expressly preclude motions not raising substantial issues of law or fact. Because our many rulings that such motions are bound to be unsuccessful have, according to Moncla, been spectacularly unsuccessful, i.e., failed to stem a tide of meritless motions, we are doubtful that baiting the legislature into making the change in statutory language that Moncla suggests would discourage such motions.
Moncla next argues that his motion met the requirement of stating a substantial issue by “rais[ing] issues of law which are supported by appropriate legal citations” and “[b]y laying out ... arguments which have previously been upheld by the appellate courts.” Moncla asserts that it need not be clear at the outset or conclusion of a district judge's initial examination of a motion that the defendant will prevail before appointment of counsel and a hearing are required. Moncla is correct that a motion does not have to be guaranteed to be successful before prompting appointment of counsel and a hearing, but our review of the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively demonstrate that Moncla cannot meet even the lesser threshold of stating a substantial issue. See Makthepharak, 298 Kan. at 576, 314 P.3d 876. The fact that a motion cites cases and presents a legal argument is not necessarily enough to avoid summary disposition.
We now turn to the merits of Moncla's motion.
Moncla first argues that the sentencing judge erred when he determined that the murder was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner. Although the judge relied on the fact that the victim had been struck multiple times with a hammer, Moncla argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that the victim was alive during any strike after the first. Moncla contends that “if the victim died instantly from the first blow to the head, it [cannot] be said that there was a high degree of pain or prolonged suffering.” Moncla argues that a lack of sufficient evidence makes his sentence illegal and created a jurisdictional defect.
The State responds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Longoria
...meant anything to the jury was that A.D. had already been identified as the human being found slain and burned at the asphalt plant. [343 P.3d 1161] And the fact that A.D. was, in fact, the victim was uncontested, so it is inscrutable to me that the majority would view a predeath picture as......
- State v. Longoria
-
State v. Thomas
...sentence that is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served. [Citations omitted.]’ ” State v. Moncla , 301 Kan. 549, 551, 343 P.3d 1161 (2015).The State argues that this court should not reach the merits of whether Thomas' sentence is illegal because the issue......
-
State v. Appleby
...K.S.A. 22-3504." Coleman , 312 Kan. at 120, 472 P.3d 85 (citing State v. Brown , 306 Kan. 330, Syl. ¶ 1, 393 P.3d 1049 (2017) ; State v. Moncla , 301 Kan. 549, Syl. ¶ 4, 343 P.3d 1161 (2015) ). Appleby offers no argument that counters this holding in Coleman , Brown , and Moncla . Coleman a......
-
Kansas Sentencing Guidelines
...[182] Id. at 221-22. See K.S.A. 22-3504 (motion to correct illegal sentence may be brought at any time). [183] See, e.g., State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549, 553-54, 343 P3d 1161 (2015) (barring constitutional challenge to hard-40 sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504); State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374, ......
-
Kansas Sentencing Guidelines
...[182] Id. at 221-22. See K.S.A. 22-3504 (motion to correct illegal sentence may be brought at any time). [183] See, e.g., State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549, 553-54, 343 P.3d 1161 (2015) (barring constitutional challenge to hard-40 sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504); State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374,......
-
Appellate Decisions
...to file appeal out of time was affirmed. Facts of case closely resemble State v. Frierson, 298 Kan. 1005 (2014), and State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549 (2015). Strict requirements from State v. Hall, 298 Kan. 978 (2014), are not applied retroactively to pre-Frierson sentences, and there is no ne......
-
Appellate Decisions
...not ordered in open court with Moncla present. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the summary dismissal of that motion. State v. Moncla, 301 Kan. 549 (2015). In 2019, Moncla filed a second illegal-sentence motion, again challenging the district court's jurisdiction to impose restitution with......