State v. Iserhardt

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 111,270

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ISERHARDT,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; EVELYN Z. WILSON, judge. Opinion filed October 16,
2015. Affirmed.

Gerald E. Wells, of Jerry Wells Attorney-at-Law, of Lawrence, for appellant.

Jodi Litfin, assistant district attorney, Chadwick J. Taylor, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt,
attorney general, for appellee.

Before MALONE, C.J., MCANANY and ATCHESON, JJ.

Per Curiam: In 2010, Defendant Michael Iserhardt pleaded no contest to a charge
of aggravated sexual battery, then a severity level 5 person felony violation of K.S.A. 21-
3518(a)(1), and the Shawnee County District Court imposed a sentence of 110 months in
prison followed by lifetime postrelease supervision. About 3 years later, Iserhardt filed a
motion to correct the sentence as illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504 on the grounds he was
incompetent when he entered his plea. The district court denied the motion. We find no
error and affirm.

2

Iserhardt's appeal fails because his argument goes to the validity of his plea and
the resulting conviction—not the legality of his sentence. A motion to correct an illegal
sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 lies when the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction, the
sentence failed to conform to the law, or the sentence was in some material way
ambiguous as to its terms. State v. Sims, 294 Kan. 821, Syl. ¶ 3, 280 P.3d 780 (2012). In
Sims, the court recognized a motion under K.S.A. 22-3504 is confined to those specific
bases for correcting a sentence and may not be used as a "means to reverse a conviction."
294 Kan. at 825. But Iserhardt concedes he has deployed the motion as a vehicle to have
the court declare his plea "a nullity and void." After the appellate briefing in this case, the
Kansas Supreme Court applied that rule to hold specifically that a motion to correct an
illegal sentence cannot serve as a vehicle for defendants to raise the issue of mental
competency to enter a plea or stand trial. State v. Ford, 302 Kan. ___, 353 P.3d 1143,
1152 (2015).

In conformity with Ford and Sims, the district court correctly denied the motion.
We mention that Iserhardt also filed a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 seeking essentially
the same relief. That motion is the subject of a separate appeal. See Iserhardt v. State,
No. 111,269 (this day decided) (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion).

Affirmed.