Title: State v. Redick

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
 
No. 124,790 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
ANDREW CHARLES REDICK, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors in 
the record arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time 
and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. 
 
Appeal from Shawnee District Court; CHERYL A. RIOS, judge. Opinion filed April 7, 2023. 
Affirmed and remanded with directions. 
 
Gerald E. Wells, of Jerry Wells Attorney-at-Law, of Lawrence, was on the brief for appellant.  
 
Steven J. Obermeier, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the 
brief for appellee. 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
STEGALL, J.:  In 2014, Andrew Charles Redick was convicted of first-degree 
murder and arson. On appeal in 2018, this court affirmed Redick's convictions but 
vacated his sentence and remanded the case to the district court with directions for 
resentencing. State v. Redick, 307 Kan. 797, 798, 414 P.3d 1207 (2018).  
 
2 
 
 
 
On July 5, 2018, the district court held a resentencing hearing and sentenced 
Redick to 27 months in prison with 12 months of postrelease supervision for arson and a 
"hard 25" life sentence for first-degree murder—with a release term that is the subject of 
this appeal. From the bench, the district court judge announced a term of lifetime parole; 
however, the judge marked the box for "Lifetime Postrelease" supervision on the journal 
entry of judgment. The following day, Redick appealed the district court's resentencing 
orders, ultimately arguing the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision is contrary to 
K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3717, and therefore his sentence is illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504.  
 
Jurisdiction is proper under K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22-3601(b)(3)-(4), and courts may 
correct an illegal sentence at any time while the sentence is being served. K.S.A. 2022 
Supp. 22-3504(a). "Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law subject to de novo 
review." State v. Mitchell, 315 Kan. 156, 158, 505 P.3d 739 (2022). 
 
Redick, the State, and this court agree that the journal entry indicating that Redick 
would be sentenced to lifetime postrelease supervision is contrary to K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 
22-3717(u). And if Redick's sentence actually included a term of lifetime postrelease 
supervision, that portion of the sentence would need to be vacated. See State v. 
Claiborne, 315 Kan. 399, 400, 508 P.3d 1286 (2022) ("'"In Kansas, off-grid crimes are 
not associated with periods of postrelease supervision but instead are followed by life 
parole."'"); State v. Becker, 311 Kan. 176, 191, 459 P.3d 173 (2020) ("A sentencing court 
has no authority to order a term of postrelease supervision in conjunction with an off-
grid, indeterminate life sentence."); State v. Gibson, 311 Kan. 732, 745-46, 466 P.3d 919 
(2020) (when lifetime postrelease supervision is improperly ordered, that portion of this 
sentence should be vacated).  
 
But a journal entry is not the controlling pronouncement of a sentence. Instead, 
"[a] criminal sentence is effective upon pronouncement from the bench." Abasolo v. 
State, 284 Kan. 299, Syl. ¶ 3, 160 P.3d 471 (2007). Importantly, at Redick's 2018 
3 
 
 
 
resentencing hearing, the district court pronounced a legal sentence imposing the required 
term of lifetime parole:  "You would be required to serve a period of parole for your 
lifetime." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, even though "[t]he sentence reflected in the 
journal entry is erroneous . . . there is no similar problem with the sentence pronounced 
from the bench." State v. Mason, 294 Kan. 675, 677, 279 P.3d 707 (2012). Redick's 
sentence as pronounced from the bench was legal. 
 
The discrepancy in the journal entry is a simple clerical error which can be 
addressed by a nunc pro tunc order correcting the portion of the journal entry to require 
lifetime parole as required by K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22-3717(u). See Mason, 294 Kan. at 
677; K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22-3504(b) ("Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other 
parts of the record and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission may be 
corrected by the court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders."). 
 
Redick's sentence is affirmed. Because the journal entry erroneously included 
lifetime postrelease supervision, we remand this case with directions to the district court 
to issue a nunc pro tunc order to correct that portion of the sentence in the journal entry. 
 
Affirmed and remanded with directions.