Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Makthepharak v. State

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 27, 2013

SASHADA MAKTHEPHARAK, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee

Page 877

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Gregory L. Waller, judge.

SYLLABUS

BY THE COURT

1. A district court should examine a motion to correct an illegal sentence to determine if it raises substantial issues of law or fact. If it does not, the motion may be summarily denied.

2. An appellate court applies a de novo standard of review to a district court's summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504.

3. Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.

4. An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to authorize prosecution of a juvenile as an adult to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision. This court does not review the analysis of the trial court; instead, the standard of review applies to the evidence.

5. Whether the district court correctly construed a pro se pleading is a question of law subject to unlimited review.

6. K.S.A. 22-3504 only applies if a sentence is illegal. A sentence imposed without jurisdiction is an illegal sentence.

7. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction may be attacked at any time and may be vacated because it is a nullity.

8. The jurisdiction of the district court over juvenile offenders in 2001 was based solely upon compliance with the provisions of the Kansas Juvenile Offenders Code, K.S.A. 38-1601 et seq.

9. The standard for evaluating whether a decision to certify a juvenile as an adult was proper in 2001 is whether the decision as a whole is supported by substantial competent evidence. It is not error for a court to give greater weight to some factors than it gives to others. The trial court is not required to give the factors listed in K.S.A. 38-1636(e) equal weight.

10. Pro se pleadings are liberally construed, giving effect to the pleading's content rather than the labels and forms used to articulate the arguments.

11. Under the facts of this case, the district court did not err in summarily denying the defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504.

Carl F.A. Maughan and Catherine A. Zigtema, of Maughan & Maughan LC, of Wichita, were on the brief for appellant.

David Lowden, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek L. Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellees.

OPINION

Page 878

[298 Kan. 574] Nuss, C.J.

Sashada Makthepharak appeals denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504. The motion is primarily based on Makthepharak's claim that his sentence was entered by a court without jurisdiction because he was never properly certified for adult prosecution. Our jurisdiction is under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3). See State v. Pennington, 288 Kan. 599, 599, 205 P.3d 741 (2009) ( jurisdiction over appeal of motion to correct illegal sentence lies with court that had jurisdiction to hear original appeal).

We reject his arguments and affirm.

Facts

In 2001, the State charged Sashada Makthepharak as a juvenile with alternative counts of first-degree premeditated murder and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.