Summary
The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the denial of Peter J. Davis's motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court held that the motion was not an appropriate vehicle for collaterally attacking the conviction based on the State's failure to memorialize an oral amendment to the charging information. It further concluded that the failure to memorialize the amendment did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction or establish prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 may be used to obtain reversal of a conviction based on the failure to memorialize in writing an oral amendment to the charging information.
- Whether the failure to memorialize the oral amendment deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Whether the oral amendment was permissible under K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-3201(e).
Holdings
- A motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 does not provide a means for collaterally attacking a conviction; the statute authorizes correction of an illegal sentence, not reversal of the conviction.
- The State's failure to file or otherwise memorialize in writing an oral amendment to the complaint or information does not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction and is not, by itself, reversible error.
- An oral amendment before the verdict is permissible when it charges no additional or different crime and does not prejudice the defendant; changing only the alleged date of the offense did not charge a different crime, so the amendment was permissible if Davis was not prejudiced.
Key quotations
“We affirm, holding that a motion to correct an illegal sentence does not provide a defendant a means for a collateral attack of a conviction arising after a district court ruled that the State, during trial, could orally amend the date of offense alleged in the complaint.” (666)
“The State's failure to file an amended complaint after making an oral motion to do so does not deprive a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant.” (667)
“A motion to correct an illegal sentence is not the appropriate mechanism for the relief he seeks.” (667)
Factual background
Davis was charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, with the charging documents alleging different offense dates involving Davis and his codefendants. After the State rested, the State orally moved over objection to amend the information so that the conspiracy was alleged to have occurred on January 26, 2000, rather than January 24, 2000. The trial court granted the motion, but no written amended information or contemporaneous journal entry was filed; Davis was convicted and later claimed that the omission prejudiced him and deprived the court of jurisdiction.
Procedural history
Davis was convicted after the State orally amended the conspiracy count at the close of its evidence to change the alleged offense date. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. He later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the district court denied after finding no prejudice; the district court then directed the State to file a nunc pro tunc journal entry memorializing the amended offense. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed, but on the ground that the statutory motion could not be used to collaterally attack the conviction.