Opinion ID: 2508695
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the District Court Abuse its Discretion by Summarily Denying Mebane's Motions without Granting an Evidentiary Hearing, Requiring Mebane's Presence, and Appointing Counsel?

Text: In summarily denying Mebane's motion to correct an illegal sentence, the district court found: 1. That the merits of this motion may be decided based upon the record as it now exists and is before the court; 2. That no evidentiary hearing would be of benefit to the court; 3. That the presence of the defendant in Wyandotte County, Kansas is not necessary for a determination of the merits of said motion; 4. That the defendant's motion for appointment of attorney to represent him in this matter is not necessary and is therefore denied; 5. That the defendant's claim that he was illegally sentenced due to the court's failure to allow him his right to allocution is without merit. K.S.A. 22-3504 provides that a defendant shall have a right to a hearing, . . . to be personally present and to have the assistance of counsel in any proceeding for the correction of an illegal sentence. This court has interpreted K.S.A. 22-3504 not to require a full hearing upon the filing of every motion to correct an illegal sentence. Rather, when a defendant files such a motion, the district court has a duty to make a preliminary examination of the motion to determine if substantial issues of law or fact are raised. If there are none, the court may summarily dismiss the motion. Only if the court finds that the motion raises substantial issues of law or fact must the court then hold a hearing in the presence of the defendant with defense counsel. State v. Duke, 263 Kan. at 196. In State v. Johnson, 269 Kan. 594, 601, 7 P.3d 294 (2000), this court held that the State's alleged violation of a plea agreement did not fall within the definition of illegal sentence as contemplated by K.S.A. 22-3504(1); therefore, the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence did not raise a substantial issue and was properly dismissed by the district court. Similarly, in this case the district court correctly determined that Mebane's motion to correct an illegal sentence did not raise a substantial issue. Furthermore, K.S.A. 22-3504(2) does not require a hearing and appointment of counsel for motions for nunc pro tunc orders. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, the district court did not err in deciding Mebane's motions without holding an evidentiary hearing in Mebane's presence or appointing counsel. Affirm.