Title: State v. Ross
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 124134
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: June 10, 2022

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 124,134 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
HARVEY L. ROSS JR., 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
 
1. 
 
K.S.A. 22-3201 cannot be used as a procedural vehicle to bring a cause of action; 
instead, the statute merely sets out the requirements for a charging document. 
 
2. 
 
Defective complaint claims are not properly raised in a motion to correct an illegal 
sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504. 
 
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; TYLER J. ROUSH, judge. Opinion filed June 10, 2022. 
Affirmed.  
 
Sam S. Kepfield, of Sam Kepfield Law Offices, of Hutchinson, was on the brief for appellant.  
 
Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, 
attorney general, were on the brief for appellee. 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
STANDRIDGE, J.:  Harvey L. Ross Jr. appeals the district court's denial of his post-
conviction request to reverse his conviction based on allegations that the trial court did 
not have subject matter jurisdiction over his criminal proceedings. Because Ross fails to 
identify a timely, unexhausted, and proper procedural vehicle for presenting his subject 
matter jurisdiction challenge to the court, we affirm the district court's denial of his claim.  
 
FACTS 
 
In 2004, a jury convicted Ross of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree 
murder, and criminal possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Ross to life 
imprisonment for first-degree murder; 586 months for attempted first-degree murder, to 
run concurrent; and 9 months for criminal possession of a firearm, to run consecutive. 
Ross appealed his conviction, and we affirmed. State v. Ross, 280 Kan. 878, 889, 127 
P.3d 249 (2006).  
 
Ross has continued to seek relief through several postconviction motions. See 
Ross v. State, No. 103,369, 2011 WL 3444314 (Kan. App. 2011) (unpublished opinion) 
(affirming denial of K.S.A. 60-1507 motion); Ross v. Heimgartner, No. 12-3085-SAC, 
2013 WL 1149981 (D. Kan. 2013) (unpublished opinion) (order denying federal habeas 
relief).  
 
In 2021, Ross filed a pro se motion captioned "Informational defect/Lack of 
Jurisdiction under K.S.A. 22-3201(b)(c)(e)(f)(g)(e)." Relevant to this appeal, he argued 
the criminal complaint filed by the State "failed to confer subject matter jurisdiction on 
the trial court" because the complaint failed to state essential facts constituting each of 
3 
 
 
 
the charged offenses. Ross argued these alleged defects required his convictions to be 
reversed. Ross also requested the appointment of an attorney.  
 
The district court reviewed Ross' subject matter jurisdiction claim on the merits 
but denied his request for relief:      
 
"Defendant's claim fails because his only claim relating to subject matter 
jurisdiction is that the charging document is defective. But, '[c]harging documents do not 
bestow or confer subject matter jurisdiction on state courts to adjudicate criminal cases; 
the Kansas Constitution does. Charging documents need only show that a case has been 
filed in the correct court, e.g., the district court rather than municipal court; show that the 
court has territorial jurisdiction over the crime alleged; and allege facts that, if proved 
beyond a reasonable doubt, would constitute a Kansas crime committed by the 
defendant.' State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773, 811, 375 P.3d 332, 355-56 (2016). 
 
"Furthermore, the claim that the charging document did not contain enough 
information to satisfy due process also fails. 'The plain language of K.S.A. 22-3201(b) is 
relatively clear:  A charging document shall state "essential facts" constituting the crime 
charged, and the document "shall be deemed sufficient" if it is "drawn in the language of 
the statute." The statute's emphasis on "facts" rather than "elements" is repeated in other 
related statutes and legally significant.'" Dunn, 304 Kan. at 811. 
 
"In this case, the charging document adequately stated the elements of the crimes 
of conviction. The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction, so this claim fails." 
 
Ross timely appealed.  
 
ANALYSIS 
 
Although our analysis differs from that provided by the district court, we affirm 
the decision to deny Ross the relief he seeks. Unlike the district court, we decline to 
4 
 
 
 
address the merits of Ross' challenge to the district court's subject matter jurisdiction 
because Ross fails to identify a timely, unexhausted, and proper procedural vehicle for 
presenting his challenge to the court.     
 
In his motion, Ross cites K.S.A. 22-3201 to argue the criminal complaint filed by 
the State failed to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the district court. But Ross readily 
acknowledges in his appellate brief that K.S.A. 22-3201 cannot be used as a procedural 
vehicle to bring a cause of action; instead, the statute merely sets out the requirements for 
a charging document. Ross also did not request his pleading be construed as a K.S.A. 60-
1507 motion. Indeed, such a motion would have been procedurally barred as untimely 
and successive. See State v. Robertson, 309 Kan. 602, 608-09, 439 P.3d 898 (2019). And 
Ross acknowledges his pleading would not have been timely if treated as a motion for 
arrest of judgment under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3502. Finally, although Ross frames the 
issue on appeal as one alleging the district court erred in summarily denying his motion 
to correct an illegal sentence, we have repeatedly emphasized a motion to correct an 
illegal sentence is not an appropriate vehicle to reverse a conviction based on a defective 
charging document. See Robertson, 309 Kan. at 605-06 (citing State v. Trotter, 296 Kan. 
898, 902, 295 P.3d 1039 [2013]); State v. Deal, 286 Kan. 528, 530, 186 P.3d 735 (2008). 
"The relief available under the statute is correction of a sentence, rather than reversal of a 
conviction." Robertson, 309 Kan. at 605-06 (citing State v. Nash, 281 Kan. 600, 601, 133 
P.3d 836 [2006]).  
 
Because Ross fails to identify a timely, unexhausted, and proper procedural 
vehicle for presenting his subject matter jurisdiction challenge to the court, we affirm the 
district court's denial of his claim.   
 
Affirmed.