motion to correct illegal sentence filed under K.S.A. 2018
Supp. 22-3504 that alleges a defect in the charging document
does not give a court jurisdiction to reverse a conviction
that has become a final judgment.
court need not entertain a second or successive motion for
relief under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-1507(c) in the absence of
motion under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-1507 must be filed within
the time set out in 60-1507(f)(1), (2) unless the movant
establishes that a manifest injustice would result.
from Butler District Court; Michael E. Ward, judge.
J. Robertson, appellant, was on the briefs pro se.
C. Devinney, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney
general, were on the brief for appellee.
J. Robertson appeals from the district court's summary
dismissal of his pro se motion, which he calls a combined
"motion to correct illegal sentence" and
"motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction." In
the combined motion, he invokes K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 as
the basis for jurisdiction and requests his convictions be
reversed. We affirm the summary denial of Robertson's
motion because he cannot collaterally attack a conviction
through a motion to correct an illegal sentence filed under
K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 that claims a defective complaint
meant the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict. We
also hold the district court lacked jurisdiction over
Robertson's motion to dismiss. Finally, we decline to
consider the motion as one filed under K.S.A. 2018 Supp.
60-1507 because such a motion is procedurally barred.
and Procedural History
convicted Robertson of first-degree murder, arson, and
aggravated burglary for his role in the death of his
girlfriend's mother, Patricia Self. This court affirmed
his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See State
v. Robertson, 279 Kan. 291, 109 P.3d 1174 (2005).
then, Robertson has raised various challenges to his
convictions and sentences. The district court referenced five
other district court orders addressing Robertson's
collateral attacks. Three of those attempts have reached this
court. In one, Robertson vainly sought relief through a
motion to correct illegal sentence filed under K.S.A.
22-3504. See State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342,
343-45, 312 P.3d 361 (2013). In the other two, Robertson
either explicitly sought relief under K.S.A. 60-1507 or the
district court liberally construed the motion as one seeking
relief under that statute. See generally Robertson v.
State, 288 Kan. 217, 201 P.3d 691 (2009) (considering
and rejecting merits of motion explicitly filed under
60-1507); State v. Robertson, No. 112, 714, 2017 WL
2062832, at *1-3 (Kan. 2017) (unpublished opinion)
(considering and rejecting motion district court had treated
as one filed under 60-1507).
current appeal, Robertson invokes K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504
as the sole basis for jurisdiction. He asserts his status as
a sovereign and criticizes the way his name appears in the
charging document. He further asserts the document charges a
trust, not a person. According to him, these shortcomings
cause a fatal defect in the charging document that deprived
the district court of jurisdiction to convict him. Thus, he
argues, his convictions should be reversed. He also contends
Kansas statutes are commercial contracts, and he reserves his
rights not to perform under the statutes.
district court summarily denied relief. It held the motion
lacked any legal or factual basis and consisted of
"nothing more than a futile exercise in semantics and a