Title: State v. Vasquez

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 124,028 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
MARTIN VASQUEZ, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
 
An illegal sentence is a sentence that (1) is imposed by a court without 
jurisdiction; (2) does not conform to statutory provisions about the character or term of 
punishment authorized; or (3) ambiguously states the time to be served or the way the 
defendant must serve the sentence. Whether a sentence meets these definitions presents a 
question of law. A district court may summarily deny the motion without appointment of 
counsel if the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the defendant has 
no right to relief. On appeal from a district court order summarily denying a motion to 
correct illegal sentence, an appellate court conducts an unlimited review because the 
appellate court has the same access to the files, records, and motion as the district court. 
 
Appeal from Edwards District Court; BRUCE T. GATTERMAN, judge. Opinion filed June 3, 2022. 
Affirmed.  
 
Martin Vasquez, appellant pro se, was on the briefs.  
 
Kristafer R. Ailslieger, deputy solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the 
brief for appellee. 
 
2 
 
 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
LUCKERT, C.J.:  Martin Vasquez challenges the district court's summary denial of 
his motions to correct illegal sentences for three counts of first-degree murder, one count 
each of aggravated robbery and felony theft, and one count of misdemeanor theft. 
Vasquez' claims do not fall within the narrow statutory definition of illegal sentence. We 
thus affirm the district court's summary dismissal of Vasquez' motions.  
 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
The facts of the underlying crime are set forth in Vasquez' direct appeal, State v. 
Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40, 194 P.3d 563 (2008). Highly summarized, an Edwards County 
District Court jury convicted Vasquez of three counts of first-degree murder, one count 
each of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and felony theft, and one count of 
misdemeanor theft after his estranged wife, her father, and her new boyfriend died from 
gunshot wounds to the head. The sentencing judge imposed three consecutive sentences 
of a maximum of life and a minimum of 40 years for the first-degree murder convictions. 
 
He appealed, and this court affirmed all convictions except one for aggravated 
burglary. 287 Kan. at 62.  
 
Sometime later, Vasquez filed a motion for postconviction relief under K.S.A. 60-
1507. The district court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that 
judgment. Vasquez v. State, No. 106,505, 2014 WL 4080025 (Kan. App. 2014) 
(unpublished opinion), rev. denied 302 Kan. 1022 (2015).  
 
The current proceedings began in March 2020, with a series of pro se motions. In 
the motions, Vasquez attacks his convictions. He argues insufficient evidence supported 
3 
 
 
 
the theft of a handgun count, the court should not have admitted assorted items of 
forensic evidence because of Brady violations, law enforcement falsely arrested him, and 
he is innocent.  
 
The district court consolidated the motions and summarily denied them, finding 
that none of the motions raised a substantial issue of law or fact that would support the 
narrow grounds for relief allowed under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504, the motion for 
illegal sentence statute. Because Vasquez had made passing references to K.S.A. 60-1501 
and K.S.A. 60-1507, the judge also addressed the reasons Vazquez had no right to relief 
under those statutes.  
 
Vasquez appeals, and this court has jurisdiction under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-
3601(b)(3) (vesting appellate jurisdiction over cases in which maximum sentence of life 
imprisonment imposed).  
 
ANALYSIS 
 
Vasquez framed his motions as ones to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 
2020 Supp. 22-3504(a). Longstanding caselaw and, more recently, the illegal sentence 
statute define an illegal sentence as a sentence that (1) is imposed by a court without 
jurisdiction; (2) does not conform to statutory provisions about the character or term of 
punishment authorized; or (3) ambiguously states the time to be served or how the 
defendant must serve the sentence. K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504(c)(1); State v. Sartin, 
310 Kan. 367, 370, 446 P.3d 1068 (2019).  
 
Whether a sentence meets these definitions presents a question of law. A district 
court may summarily deny the motion without appointment of counsel if the motion, 
files, and records of the case conclusively show the defendant has no right to relief. 
4 
 
 
 
State v. Mitchell, 315 Kan. 156, 158, 505 P.3d 739 (2022). On appeal from a district court 
order summarily denying a motion to correct illegal sentence, an appellate court conducts 
an unlimited review because the appellate court has the same access to the files, records, 
and motion as the district court. State v. Alford, 308 Kan. 1336, 1338, 429 P.3d 197 
(2018).  
 
Here, that unlimited review shows that, even under a liberal reading of Vasquez' 
pleadings, none of the alleged errors fall within the narrow parameters of an illegal 
sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504. All the arguments concern rulings about the 
admission or the sufficiency of evidence. Vasquez attacks his convictions, not the legality 
of this sentence. He presents no arguments about whether the court lacked jurisdiction to 
impose his sentences, the sentences conform to statutory provisions, or the sentences are 
ambiguous.  
 
In other words, the district court judge correctly determined that Vasquez raised 
no substantial issues of law or fact that would support correcting an illegal sentence. The 
district court thus did not err in summarily denying Vasquez' motions to correct an illegal 
sentence. And, assuming Vazquez had raised claims under K.S.A. 60-1501 or K.S.A. 
60-1507, he does not argue on appeal that the district court judge erred in denying those 
claims. Vasquez has thus abandoned any appellate argument he might have about those 
rulings. See State v. Bailey, 313 Kan. 895, 897, 491 P.3d 1256 (2021) (party abandons 
issue by failing to adequately brief it).  
 
Finding no error, we affirm the district court.  
 
Affirmed.