Whether the existing interpretation of a statute should be changed is reviewed de novo. See Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573 , 575, 314 P.3d 876 (2013) (citing State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796 , 804, 248 P.3d 256 [2011]). Discussion

Our review of the issue raised and all arguments asserted by Barnes in support thereof is de novo. See Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573, 575, 577, 314 P.3d 876 (2013) (determination of whether statutory interpretation should be changed is reviewed de novo; appellate court reviews district court's summary denial of motion to correct illegal sentence de novo). Analysis

” When presented with a motion to correct illegal sentence, a district judge should conduct an initial examination of the motion to determine if it raises substantial issues of law or fact. Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573, 576, 314 P.3d 876 (2013). If it does not, i.e., if the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief, the motion may be denied summarily without a hearing or appointment of counsel. 298 Kan. at 576, 314 P.3d 876.

Whether a sentence is illegal, within the meaning of K.S.A. 22–3504, is a question of law over which this court exercises unlimited review. Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573, 578, 314 P.3d 876 (2013).At the outset, it is necessary to address the scope of the issues before this court.

A district court may resolve a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 without holding an evidentiary hearing if the record conclusively establishes that the movant is not entitled to relief. See Makthepharak v. State , 298 Kan. 573, 577, 314 P.3d 876 (2013). When a district court denies a motion without entertaining evidence or making findings of fact, an appellate court's review is unlimited, as appellate judges are in the same position as the district court was to assess the motion.

State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018 , 1034, 350 P.3d 1054 (2015). We have “'repeatedly held that K.S.A. 22-3504(1) has very limited applicability/” Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573 , 581, 314 P.3d 876 (2013). And it does not cover a claim that a sentence violates a constitutional provision.

K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2347(d)(1)-(8), (e). See Makthepharak v. State , 298 Kan. 573, 580, 314 P.3d 876 (2013) (explicitly stating that K.S.A. 38-1636(e), the predecessor to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 38-2347(d), requires the district court to consider all eight factors); In re D.D.M. , 291 Kan. 883, 893-94, 249 P.3d 5 (2011). The district court may authorize adult prosecution "if the court finds from a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged juvenile offender should be prosecuted as an adult for the offense charged."

The State argues that findings of facts are unnecessary for appellate review because of the standard of review. Blaurock cites two cases to support his position: Makthepharak v. State , 298 Kan. 573, 314 P.3d 876 (2013), and Harris v. State , 31 Kan. App. 2d 237, 62 P.3d 672 (2003). These cases are unpersuasive and do not support the proposition for which Blaurock cites them.

An illegal sentence is defined as " ‘(1) a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) a sentence that does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in the character or the term of authorized punishment; or (3) a sentence that is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served.’ " Makthepharak v. State , 298 Kan. 573, 578, 314 P.3d 876 (2013) (quoting State v. Trotter , 296 Kan. 898, 902, 295 P.3d 1039 [2013] ). Whether a sentence is illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 22-3504 is a question of law over which we have unlimited review. Makthepharak , 298 Kan. at 578.

Once such a motion is properly before the district court, that court may summarily dismiss the motion only if it is absolutely clear from review of the court record and the motion that there is no potential merit to die motion. See Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573 , 576, 314 P.3d 876 (2013) (holding that a motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504[1] maybe dismissed without a hearing only if review of the court record conclusively shows the defendant is not entitled to relief); State v. Hood, No. 112,332, 2016 WL 463742 , at *2 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished opinion) (applying same standards for review of motion under K.S.A. 22-3504[2] as for K.S.A. 22-3504[1]). That’s not the case here.