from Wyandotte District Court; R. Wayne Lampson, judge.
E. Wells, of Jerry Wells Attorney-at-Law, of Lawrence, was on
the brief for appellant.
A. Gorman, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney
general, were on the brief for appellee.
denial of parole is not a sentence.
Lee Buford appeals the district court's summary dismissal
of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Concluding that
Buford's sentence was not illegal, we affirm.
and Procedural Background
March 6, 1990, Buford pled guilty to felony murder. The
district court sentenced Buford on April 25, 1990, to life
imprisonment pursuant to K.S.A. 21-4501(a) (Ensley 1988).
claims that since his imprisonment, he has appeared before
the parole board on six different occasions and that the
parole board "passed" him for a number of months
each time. Buford contends that the most recent denial
occurred in 2014.
November 21, 2014, Buford filed a pro se motion to correct an
illegal sentence, arguing that each time the parole board
passed him, it instituted a new and illegal sentence. The
district court summarily denied his motion, stating that
Buford received the proper sentence when the court sentenced
him to life imprisonment and therefore his sentence was not
illegal. Buford appealed to this court.
does not argue that his life sentence is illegal. He argues
that the parole board instituted a new sentence each time it
denied his parole and that these "sentences" are
illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504. Buford appears to allege that
the "sentences" are illegal because they increase
his original penalty based on an improper classification of
his criminal history, which is a violation of his Sixth
Amendment rights under Descamps v. United States,
570 U.S. 254, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), and
State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018, 350 P.3d 1054
(2015). More specifically, Buford's motion contends that
the parole board denied his parole based on its
classification of his criminal history according to the
Kansas Sentencing Guidelines. Because he committed his prior
crime before 1993, Buford argues that the parole board should
have classified this conviction as a nonperson felony.
review the district court's summary denial of a motion to
correct an illegal sentence de novo because we have the same
access to the motions, records, and files. We must determine
whether the documents conclusively show the defendant is not