Title: State v. Samuel
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 116423
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: January 11, 2019

1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No. 116,423 
 
STATE OF KANSAS, 
Appellee, 
 
v. 
 
ROY EUGENE SAMUEL, 
Appellant. 
 
 
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 
  
A claim that a criminal sentence is illegal because it violates the United States 
Constitution cannot be brought under K.S.A. 22-3504(1). 
  
Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; WESLEY K. GRIFFIN, judge. Opinion filed January 11, 
2019. Affirmed. 
 
Peter Maharry, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause, and Corrine E. Gunning, 
of the same office, was on the brief for appellant.  
 
Ethan Zipf-Sigler, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Mark A. Dupree Sr., district 
attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee. 
 
The opinion of the court was delivered by 
 
BILES, J.:  Roughly 19 years after his second-degree murder conviction, Roy 
Eugene Samuel filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. He claims his sentence of 
life imprisonment with a mandatory 10-year term violates the Eighth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution because he was only 16 years old when he committed the 
crime. The district court summarily denied the motion. Samuel directly appeals to this 
2 
 
 
 
court. We affirm because the motion is not the appropriate procedural vehicle to raise his 
claim. See State v. Amos, 307 Kan. 147, 148, 406 P.3d 917 (2017) ("This court has 
repeatedly held a defendant cannot raise constitutional challenges to a sentence via a 
motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504[1].").  
 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
 
In 1996, Samuel, then 16 years old, killed Patrick Brunner. The State charged him 
with second-degree murder under K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 21-3402(a), which was an off-grid 
person felony. After he pled guilty as charged in 1997, the district court sentenced him to 
life imprisonment with a mandatory 10-year term before being eligible for parole. 
 
In 2016, Samuel moved under K.S.A. 22-3504(1) to correct an illegal sentence 
based on the United States Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 
132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012) (holding mandatory life imprisonment without 
parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth 
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments), and Montgomery v. 
Louisiana, 577 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 718, 193 L. Ed. 2d 599 (2016) (holding Miller should 
apply retroactively for purposes of state collateral review of sentence). His motion 
acknowledged Miller was applicable only to "those juvenile offenders who were 
sentenced to life without the possibility of parole" but asked the district court to extend 
Miller to his case, "serving life with the possibility of parole." (Emphases added.) 
 
Samuel alternatively argued his sentence is substantively unconstitutional because 
he will be subject to lifetime supervision when he is paroled, seeking to extend State v. 
Dull, 302 Kan. 32, 351 P.3d 641 (2015) (mandatory lifetime postrelease supervision 
categorically unconstitutional when imposed on a juvenile convicted of aggravated 
indecent liberties with a child). 
3 
 
 
 
 
The district court summarily denied the motion. See Makthepharak v. State, 298 
Kan. 573, 576, 314 P.3d 876 (2013) (when presented with a motion to correct illegal 
sentence, a district court should conduct an initial examination of the motion to determine 
if it raises substantial issues of law or fact). The court held the motion to correct an illegal 
sentence was not a proper vehicle to challenge a sentence as unconstitutional. It 
alternatively held his sentence was constitutional. In that respect, the court relied on State 
v. Warrior, 303 Kan. 1008, 368 P.3d 1111 (2016) (holding K.S.A. 22-3504 "does not 
cover a claim that a sentence violates a constitutional provision"), and State v. Brown, 
300 Kan. 542, Syl. ¶ 8, 331 P.3d 781 (2014) (mandatory hard 20 life sentence imposed on 
juvenile defendant convicted of felony murder did not violate the Eighth Amendment). 
 
Samuel directly appealed to this court. Jurisdiction is proper. K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 
22-3601(b)(3) (direct appeal when "a maximum sentence of life imprisonment has been 
imposed"); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3601(b)(4) (direct appeal when "the defendant has 
been convicted of an off-grid crime"); Kirtdoll v. State, 306 Kan. 335, 337, 393 P.3d 
1053 (2017) ("A ruling on a motion to correct an illegal sentence, where the sentence 
imposed for a homicide is imprisonment for life, is directly appealable to this court."). 
 
ANALYSIS 
 
This court must determine whether Samuel's constitutional claim fits within the 
definition of "illegal sentence." An illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 may be 
corrected at any time, but the circumstances under which a sentence is deemed illegal for 
K.S.A. 22-3504 purposes are "narrowly and specifically defined." State v. Swafford, 306 
Kan. 537, 540-41, 394 P.3d 1188 (2017). Whether a sentence is illegal within the 
statutory meaning is a question of law over which appellate courts have unlimited review. 
4 
 
 
 
State v. Alford, 308 Kan. 1336, Syl. ¶ 2, 429 P.3d 197 (2018); State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 
374, 376, 162 P.3d 18 (2007). 
 
Samuel claims the district court was without jurisdiction to impose a sentence that 
violates the Eighth Amendment. In 2016, when Samuel filed this motion, our caselaw 
defined "illegal sentence" as follows: 
 
"'"(1) a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) a sentence that does not 
conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in the character or the term of 
authorized punishment; or (3) a sentence that is ambiguous with respect to the time and 
manner in which it is to be served." State v. Trotter, 296 Kan. 898, 902, 295 P.3d 1039 
(2013).' State v. Dickey, 301 Kan. 1018, 1034, 350 P.3d 1054 (2015)." Warrior, 303 Kan. 
at 1009-10. 
 
This judicial definition was added to the current version of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-
3504(3). See L. 2017, ch. 62, § 9.  
 
Samuel's Eighth Amendment claims do not implicate the sentencing court's 
jurisdiction. "[J]urisdiction is acquired in a criminal case upon the filing or amendment of 
a complaint, indictment, or information . . . ." Trotter v. State, 288 Kan. 112, 126, 200 
P.3d 1236 (2009). And this court has repeatedly held a motion to correct an illegal 
sentence under the statute cannot raise claims that the sentence violates a constitutional 
provision. Amos, 307 Kan. at 149. Samuel asks us to overrule our long-established 
caselaw that the Legislature codified verbatim into the statute. We decline to do so.  
 
Affirmed.