1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 126,231

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

FAYVUN MANNING,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; AARON T. ROBERTS, judge. Submitted without oral 

argument. Opinion filed January 26, 2024. Affirmed.

Fayvun Manning, appellant pro se. 

Kayla Roehler, deputy district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Kris W. 

Kobach, attorney general, for appellee.

Before HILL, P.J., MALONE and ISHERWOOD, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Fayvun Manning embarked on a crime spree in the late 1990s,

which resulted in convictions from two separate jury trials. At the conclusion of the first 

case, the district court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of 15 years for felony 

murder and 51 months for aggravated robbery. In the second case, he was sentenced to 

serve a 162-month prison term consecutive to the sentences imposed in his first case. In 

the years that followed, Manning repeatedly sought relief under K.S.A. 60-1507, as well 

as a motion to correct an illegal sentence, none of which produced results favorable to 

him. Manning recently again attempted to obtain relief through a motion to correct an 
2

illegal sentence by arguing the consecutive nature of his prison terms in the two cases 

gave rise to an ambiguous sentence. The district court denied the motion under principles 

of res judicata but also went on to find that he was not entitled to relief on the merits of 

his claim. Manning appeals that denial and questions whether res judicata truly provided 

an applicable theory for denial of his motion and whether the merits of his contention 

demand correction of his sentence. 

Following a careful review of the record, we share the district court's conclusion 

that res judicata barred Manning from relief given that he had the opportunity to raise his 

most recent claim in earlier motions but neglected to do so. Given our conclusion on that 

issue, it is unnecessary to analyze the merits of his illegal sentence claim. Accordingly, 

the district court's denial of Manning's motion to correct illegal sentence is affirmed. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September 1998, a jury convicted Manning of one count of first-degree felony 

murder and one count of aggravated robbery, and the district court sentenced him to life 

without the possibility of parole for 15 years for the felony murder and 51 months for the 

aggravated robbery, with the sentences to be served consecutively. The following year, 

Manning was convicted of one count of aggravated battery and, despite Manning's 

request that the district court run his sentence concurrent with that ordered in his earlier 

case, the judge imposed a 162-month prison sentence to be served consecutive to the 

sentences in his first case. As support for its denial of Manning's request, the court cited 

the premeditated and excessively brutal, senseless nature of the crime. 

In 2018, Manning filed his first motion to correct an illegal sentence to contend 

that the district court lacked any statutory authority to order the sentences in the two 

cases to run consecutive. He also argued that the convictions in his first case were wholly 
3

accounted for in his criminal history score, so the consecutive sentences were 

impermissible. 

The district court summarily denied Manning's motion and noted that given his 

multiple earlier requests for relief under K.S.A. 60-1507, the motion could be viewed 

through that procedural lens and denied as successive. It nevertheless addressed the 

merits of Manning's claim and concluded it was within the clear discretion of the 

sentencing judge to impose consecutive sentences. Manning appealed the denial of his 

motion, and a panel of this court affirmed the district court's decision. State v. Manning, 

No. 120,087, 2019 WL 2237225, at *4 (Kan. App. 2019) (unpublished opinion).

Several years later, Manning filed a second motion to correct an illegal sentence,

which is the subject of this appeal. Through that filing, he attempted to obtain relief by 

arguing that when the district court ordered him to serve the sentence in his second case 

consecutive to that in his first case, it imposed an ambiguous sentence. The district court 

denied his motion after finding it was barred under res judicata. 

Manning now brings his case back to our court for an analysis of whether the 

district court erred in relying on res judicata to deny his motion and whether he is entitled 

to relief on the merits of his ambiguous sentence claim. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The district court properly concluded that res judicata barred Manning's request for 

relief. 

In his first claim of error, Manning asserts that the district court improperly denied 

his motion to correct an illegal sentence under the doctrine of res judicata. His reasoning 

is based on the misunderstanding that his previous motion to correct an illegal sentence 

was filed only under his first case and not his second. The State argues that the district 
4

court properly relied on res judicata to deny the motion and points out that Manning's 

earlier motion encompassed both of his cases. We exercise a de novo standard of review 

over claims that a district court erroneously denied a motion to correct an illegal 

sentence. Makthepharak v. State, 298 Kan. 573, 577, 314 P.3d 876 (2013).

As previously noted, Manning has filed several postconviction motions in the 

years following his convictions, yet he never touched upon the claim that the district 

court's order for his sentence in his second case be served consecutively to that in his first 

gave rise to an ambiguous sentence. Thus, upon reviewing his current motion, the district 

court viewed the claim as one Manning had the opportunity to raise but failed to do so 

and, as a result, he was barred under the theory of res judicata from raising it now. In 

Kansas, four requirements must be present for res judicata to apply: (1) same claim; (2) 

same parties; (3) claims were or could have been raised; and (4) a final judgment on the 

merits. The applicability of res judicata is a question of law over which this court has 

unlimited review. State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342, 344, 312 P.3d 361 (2013).

Again, in his earlier motion, Manning argued that his sentence must be corrected 

because there was no explicit statutory authority which enabled the district court to order 

a sentence in one case to run consecutive to that from a prior case. The district court 

summarily denied his motion. First, on the grounds that it was successive given his 

history of prior postconviction motions and, second, because it was within the discretion 

of the sentencing judge whether to impose consecutive sentences. That judgment was 

affirmed on appeal. Manning, 2019 WL 2237225, at *4. 

Each of the four res judicata components is fulfilled here. First, Manning is raising 

the same claim as his previous motion, that the consecutive nature of his sentences was 

infirm and failed to meet the requirements of a legal sentence. Second, the same parties, 

Manning and the State, are litigating this motion. Third, Manning could have raised his 

current argument regarding the ambiguity of his sentence in the previous motion. Finally, 
5

his previous motion was decided by a final judgment on the merits given that the district 

court rejected Manning's particularized challenge to his sentence and this court affirmed 

the denial of that motion. See State v. Moncla, 317 Kan. 413, 416, 531 P.3d 528 (2023) 

(appellate court's affirmation of district court's summary denial of motion to correct 

illegal sentence is a final judgment on the merits). Therefore, the four requirements of res 

judicata have been satisfied.

Before moving on, it is worth acknowledging that a limited exception to the 

doctrine of res judicata exists for motions to correct illegal sentences. When a subsequent 

development in the law shows that the sentence was wrongly determined to be legal in 

the first instance, the defendant has an opportunity to revisit the merits of their motion.

To seize this opportunity, the defendant bears a threshold burden to make such a 

showing. Moncla, 317 Kan. at 416-17. The State correctly points out that Manning failed 

to identify any legal development since his previous motion appeared before this court 

which serves to undermine the prior determination that his sentence was legally imposed. 

Thus, Manning has failed to take the necessary steps to trigger that exception. 

We affirm the district court's dismissal of Manning's current motion to correct 

illegal sentence under the doctrine of res judicata. "A successive motion that merely 

seeks a 'second bite' at the illegal sentence apple is susceptible to dismissal according to 

our longstanding, common-law preclusionary rules." State v. Murdock, 309 Kan. 585, 

592-93, 439 P.3d 307 (2019). In so doing, we decline to delve into an analysis of the 

merits of the claim providing the foundation for Manning's motion. 

Affirmed.