State v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 08 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 117,450,117,450 |
| Citation | 435 P.3d 1149,309 Kan. 420 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Leslie H. ROBERTS, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Gerald E. Wells, of Jerry Wells Attorney-at-Law, of Lawrence, was on the brief for appellant.
Brandon L. Jones, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal from summary denial of a motion to correct illegal sentence filed by defendant Leslie H. Roberts, Jr. Roberts now concedes summary denial was appropriate, but he raises a new challenge to his sentence on this appeal, arguing that the handling of his pre-plea competency issue deprived the district court of jurisdiction to sentence him. We reject this new claim and affirm the denial of the motion to correct illegal sentence.
Roberts was sentenced to a hard 25 life sentence after pleading no contest to rape of a child under the age of 14 in violation of K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2). This court affirmed Roberts' sentence in State v. Roberts , 293 Kan. 1093, 272 P.3d 24 (2012).
Roberts filed a pro se motion to correct illegal sentence years later. He asserted that he had never admitted he was older than 18 or that the victim was under the age of 14 at the time of the crime, undercutting sentence-enhancing elements that had not been submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court judge dismissed Roberts' motion without appointment of counsel or holding a hearing; the judge determined that the record established Roberts' and the victim's ages at the time of the crime. See Makthepharak v. State , 298 Kan. 573, 576, 314 P.3d 876 (2013) ().
On this appeal, Roberts concedes the district judge's ruling was correct on the age issue, but he asserts he is nevertheless entitled to relief. Roberts now argues that K.S.A. 22-3302(1) procedures for determining defendant competency were not followed before he entered his plea, depriving the court of jurisdiction to sentence him. See State v. Samuel , 309 Kan. 155, 157, 432 P.3d 666 (2019) ().
After Roberts' prosecution was launched in early 2010, defense counsel Craig Cole requested a determination of Roberts' competency. Cole stated that he had "serious concerns about [Roberts'] ability to understand the charges and help with his defense." The district judge ordered an evaluation to determine competency.
The results of the evaluation were filed with the court in the form of a letter from the psychologist who had performed it. The psychologist determined "that Mr. Roberts is competent to stand trial in that he understands the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him, and has the ability to work with an attorney to make a defense." The psychologist advised, however, that the court should take into consideration some "special concerns" to maintain Roberts' competency throughout the proceedings. Specifically, the psychologist advised that Roberts was "a non-reader and ha[d] a low to borderline intellectual level of functioning."
The court acknowledged the evaluation in open court before moving on to rescheduling of Roberts' preliminary hearing.
Roberts ultimately waived his preliminary hearing and entered his no contest plea based on an agreement with the State. At the plea hearing, Cole acknowledged the previously expressed concerns over Roberts' lack of reading ability and informed the court that he had gone over the plea agreement "line by line with him." After the district judge was satisfied Roberts understood the consequence of the plea and the rights he was giving up through a colloquy, the judge asked Cole whether he believed his client's plea was freely and voluntarily given.
Whether a sentence is illegal within the meaning of the statute is a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review. Samuel , 309 Kan. at 157, 432 P.3d 666.
The Legislature has since incorporated this judicial definition of an illegal sentence into the current version of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3504(3). L. 2017, ch. 62, § 9; see Samuel , 309 Kan. at 157, 432 P.3d 666.
In State v. Ford , 302 Kan. 455, 353 P.3d 1143 (2015), this court addressed the distinction between procedural and substantive competency claims. "A procedural competency claim is based on a district court's alleged failure to hold a competency hearing or an adequate competency hearing." 302 Kan. 455, Syl. ¶ 3, 353 P.3d 1143. In contrast, a "substantive competency claim is founded on the allegation that an individual was tried and convicted while, in fact, incompetent." 302 Kan. 455, Syl. ¶ 3, 353 P.3d 1143.
A merely procedural failure to comply with the competency statute, K.S.A. 2017 Supp....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Blansett
-
State v. Gales
...of review Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review. State v. Roberts , 309 Kan. 420, 422, 435 P.3d 1149 (2019) ; see also State v. Wetrich , 307 Kan. 552, 555, 412 P.3d 984 (2018) ("Classification of prior offenses for criminal his......
-
State v. Sheets
...to make it lawful while the defendant is still serving the sentence. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(a), (c) ; State v. Roberts , 309 Kan. 420, 422, 435 P.3d 1149 (2019). Even then, though, the terms of the sentence must be announced from the bench, not added in a later document. See State v.......
-
State v. Parks
...illegal within the meaning of the statute is a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review. State v. Roberts , 309 Kan. 420, 422, 435 P.3d 1149 (2019). The penalty parameters for any criminal offense are fixed as of the date the offense is committed. State v. Keel , 30......