Opinion
No. 110,118.
2015-03-27
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Allan E. HALL, Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Warren M. Wilbert, Judge.Carl F.A. Maughan, of Maughan Law Group, LC, of Wichita, and Sean M.A. Hatfield, of the same firm, were on the brief for appellant.Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Warren M. Wilbert, Judge.
Carl F.A. Maughan, of Maughan Law Group, LC, of Wichita, and Sean M.A. Hatfield, of the same firm, were on the brief for appellant. Julie A. Koon, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIUM.
Allan E. Hall appeals the district court's summary denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence and motion for reconsideration. He seeks remand for a hearing based on his claim that K.S.A. 22–3504, which is the statute governing motions to correct illegal sentences, does not permit summary dispositions. He admits this issue was decided against him in State v. Duke, 263 Kan. 193, 195–96, 946 P.2d 1375 (1997). We affirm.
Hall pleaded guilty to the August 1978 aggravated robbery of a convenience store. His conviction was classified as a class B felony under K.S.A. 21–3427 (Weeks) (“Aggravated robbery is a class B felony.”). Hall was sentenced to 5 years to life under K.S.A.1978 Supp. 21–4501 (“Class B, the sentence for which shall be an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the minimum of which shall be fixed by the court at not less than five (5) years ... and the maximum ... at not less than twenty (20) years nor more than life.”).
In November 2012, Hall filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his aggravated robbery conviction should have been classified as a class D felony. The State's response correctly indicated the crime was a class B felony. The district court summarily denied Hall's motion, adopting the State's response. Hall filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
Hall appeals arguing he is entitled to a hearing on the motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22–3504. But this court has held otherwise on numerous occasions. See, e.g., Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573, 576, 314 P.3d 876 (2013); Duke, 263 Kan. at 195–96. Hall's appeal is without merit.
Affirmed.