Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of R.H.'s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court held that a motion under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 is not a proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a sentence and that R.H. abandoned any claim for relief under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1507 by failing to brief it.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Kansas Supreme Court had jurisdiction over R.H.'s appeal despite the filing of his notice of appeal more than 30 days after the district court's journal entry.
- Whether a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 may be used to challenge the constitutionality of a sentence under the Eighth Amendment.
- Whether R.H. preserved or adequately briefed a claim for relief under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1507.
Holdings
- The appeal was timely because the 30-day period for filing the notice of appeal did not begin until R.H. received actual notice of the district court's judgment.
- A motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 is not a proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a sentence.
- R.H. waived or abandoned any claim for relief under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1507 by failing to adequately brief it on appeal.
Key quotations
“A motion to correct an illegal sentence is not a proper vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a sentence.” (at 1)
“Issues not adequately briefed are deemed waived or abandoned.” (at 1)
Factual background
R.H. committed numerous violent felonies in 1990 when he was 15 years old, was tried as an adult, and was convicted of first-degree murder and more than a dozen nonhomicide offenses, including aggravated kidnapping. He received three consecutive life sentences, with parole eligibility after serving a minimum aggregate term of 45 years. Decades later, he argued that his sentence was unconstitutional under Miller and related juvenile-sentencing precedent.
Procedural history
R.H. was convicted and sentenced as an adult for first-degree murder and numerous other violent felonies committed when he was 15 years old. After filing a post-conviction motion more than 20 years later, the district court summarily denied relief. The Kansas Supreme Court remanded for factual findings concerning the timeliness of R.H.'s notice of appeal; after finding that R.H. lacked actual notice of the ruling until November 2017, the district court's findings established appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court then affirmed the denial of the motion.