Opinion ID: 2551181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequate and Proper Record for Review

Text: Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 183(j) (2004 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 213), the district court is required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on all of the movant's issues, either orally on the record or in a written journal entry. Without such findings of fact and conclusions of law, an appellate court cannot conduct a meaningful review of the district court's decision. Gaudina v. State, 278 Kan. 103, Syl. ¶ 5, 92 P.3d 574 (2004). Accord Harris v. State, 31 Kan. App. 2d 237, 62 P.3d 672 (2003). The defendant argues his case should be remanded for further findings of fact and conclusions of law because the district court did not address his argument concerning whether the district court could alter his sentence with a nunc pro tunc order in the August 15, 2003, memorandum opinion and order. This argument is without merit. The district court clearly articulated its reasons for denying the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, and we have concluded that the nunc pro tunc order was properly utilized by the district court. As such, no need arises to remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law. Affirmed. LUCKERT, J., not participating. LARSON, S.J., assigned. [1]