State v. Phillips

298 Kan. 270 (2013) · Supreme Court of Kansas · October 25, 2013

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed Travis Eugene Phillips’ motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging the timing and service of notice for a separate sentencing proceeding under K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 21-4624(1). The court held that the State sufficiently filed and served the notice despite the clerk’s file stamp being dated one day after arraignment. The court affirmed the district court’s summary denial of the motion.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the Court
Rosen, J.
Jurisdiction
Kansas
Decision date
October 25, 2013
Procedural posture
Phillips appealed from the district court's summary denial of his motion under K.S.A. 22-3504 to correct an illegal sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction under K.S.A. 22-3601(b).
Standard of review
De novo, because the reviewing court has the same access to the motion, records, and files as the district court.
Precedential value
Published Kansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Travis Eugene Phillips v. State of Kansas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingsentence modificationpost-conviction reliefcriminal procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

Criminal lawCriminal procedureSentencingPost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the State complied with K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 21-4624(1)'s requirement that notice of intent to request a separate sentencing proceeding be filed with the court by the time of arraignment.
  2. Whether the State complied with the statute's requirement that the notice be served on the defendant or defense counsel by the time of arraignment.

Holdings

  1. The State complied with the filing requirement because delivery of the notice to the judge with intent to file satisfied the statutory filing requirement, even though the clerk file-stamped the notice one day after arraignment.
  2. The State complied with the service requirement because the notice contained a signed certificate stating that it was personally served on Phillips' attorney on the day of arraignment, and Phillips offered no evidence rebutting the presumption that the certificate was truthful.

Key quotations

Even though the notice was not file-stamped by the clerk until the next day, a hard 40 notice could be file stamped later than the arraignment date, “provided the record shows that the State delivered notice to the judge with intent to file pursuant to K.S.A. [1991 Supp.] 60-205(e).” (272)

Factual background

In 1991, Phillips was convicted of premeditated murder. Before trial, the county attorney filed a notice seeking a separate sentencing proceeding for a possible mandatory 40-year term; the notice was personally served on defense counsel at the arraignment and was file-stamped by the clerk the following day. The trial judge referred to the notice during the arraignment and stated that it had already been filed. After conviction, the court held the separate sentencing hearing and imposed a hard 40 life sentence.

Procedural history

A jury convicted Phillips of premeditated murder in 1991, and the district court imposed a mandatory hard 40 life sentence after a separate sentencing proceeding. The Kansas Supreme Court previously affirmed the judgment and sentence. In 2011, Phillips filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the State had not timely filed and served its notice of intent to seek a separate sentencing proceeding. The district court denied the motion without a hearing, and Phillips appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…