1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,592

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

TEILL S. REYNOLDS,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; AARON T. ROBERTS, judge. Opinion filed August 27, 

2021. Affirmed.

Teill Reynolds, appellant pro se.

Daniel G. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Derek 

Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before GREEN, P.J., ISHERWOOD, J., and MCANANY, S.J.

PER CURIAM: Teill Reynolds was convicted of two counts of rape under K.S.A. 

21-3502(a)(2) (sexual intercourse with a child who is under 14 years of age). Rape as 

described in K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2) is a severity level 1 person felony unless the offender 

is 18 years of age or older, in which case it is an off-grid person felony. Reynolds was 18 

or more years old at the time of the crimes. Accordingly, he was sentenced to concurrent,

off-grid, hard 25 life sentences under Jessica's Law. Reynolds moved to correct what he 

claimed were illegal sentences, arguing that he should have been given on-grid severity 

level 1 sentences. But the district court appropriately denied relief because Reynolds 

committed the off-grid version of rape. Accordingly, we affirm.
2

In its third amended information, the State charged Reynolds with committing two 

counts of rape under K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2) and misdemeanor battery under K.S.A. 21-

3412. The State specified that the two rape charges were off-grid person felonies because

the victim was under the age of 14 and Reynolds was 18 or more years old.

The jury found Reynolds guilty on all counts. Reynolds' criminal history score was 

G. For the rape convictions, the district court sentenced Reynolds to off-grid, concurrent 

hard 25 life sentences. 

Since his sentencing, Reynolds has filed numerous motions and several appeals as 

detailed in Reynolds v. State, No. 119,374, 2019 WL 5280795 (Kan. App. 2019)

(unpublished opinion), rev. denied 311 Kan. 1046 (2020). In Reynolds, Reynolds 

contended his sentence was illegal, the same contention we address today. The court in 

that earlier appeal rejected Reynolds' claim, noting that the charging document specified 

that he "committed the off-grid person felony offense of rape of a child under 14 years 

old and he was 18 years old or older at the time of the offenses." 2019 WL 5280795, at 

*6.

Reynolds then filed his current motion, arguing that his off-grid sentence was 

illegal because his crime of conviction was an on-grid offense. The district court denied 

the motion, holding that Reynolds' arguments were "either entirely incorrect or 

impossible to discern." The district court noted that Reynolds was clearly "charged with 

two counts of rape, both explicitly characterized in the information as a '(Rape, Off Grid, 

Person Felony)'." 

Reynolds' current pro se appeal followed.
3

As the State notes, Reynolds has failed to adhere to almost every briefing 

requirement in Kansas Supreme Court Rule 6.02 (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 35). While we 

could dismiss the appeal under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 5.05(a) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 

33), because of the straightforwardness of the issue we choose to address it.

Reynolds makes the same argument on appeal as he did before the district court. 

Essentially, he argues that his sentence is illegal because it "does not conform to the 

applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment." See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 

22-3504(c)(1). In our de novo review under the standard stated in State v. Alford, 308 

Kan. 1336, 1338, 429 P.3d 197 (2018), it is clear to us that Reynolds is wrong. 

Reynolds was charged under K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2), which defined rape as "sexual 

intercourse with a child who is under 14 years of age." K.S.A. 21-3502(c) states that a 

rape under (a)(2) is an off-grid person felony when the offender is 18 years of age or 

older. Reynolds received the statutorily correct off-grid life sentences. 

Reynolds also argues that his sentence is unconstitutional. However, a motion to 

correct an illegal sentence "is an improper procedural vehicle for a constitutional claim." 

State v. Warrior, 303 Kan. 1008, Syl., 368 P.3d 1111 (2016). Accordingly, we do not 

consider it.

Affirmed.