State v. Leffel

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Nos. 120,740
120,764
120,765

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

JORDAN MYCHAEL LEFFEL,
Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Reno District Court; TIMOTHY J. CHAMBERS, judge. Opinion filed December 13,
2019. Affirmed.

Shawnah K. Corcoran, of Strongpoint Law, of South Hutchinson, for appellant.

Keith E. Schroeder, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before ARNOLD BURGER, C.J., LEBEN and SCHROEDER, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Jordan Leffel faced eight charges for his role in three armed
robberies during the spring of 2015. The State first brought those charges as one criminal
case, but when Leffel refused to testify against his codefendants, the State refiled the
charges as three separate cases. Pleading guilty in three cases—instead of one—increased
Leffel's criminal-history score, which also increased his presumptive sentences under the
sentencing guidelines. Leffel now asks this court to decide whether the prosecutor's
conduct violated his constitutional right to due process and, if so, whether that makes
Leffel's sentences illegal.
2


But in the appeal now before us, Leffel initially raised these arguments in a motion
to correct an illegal sentence. An illegal-sentence motion has narrow applicability, and a
defendant may not file one based on a constitutional challenge to the sentence. We
therefore affirm the district court's denial of his motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Leffel took part in three separate armed robberies in 2015. After he was arrested,
the State charged him with three counts of robbery, three counts of burglary, and two
counts of kidnapping. It first chose to bring those eight charges as part of a single
criminal case. But the prosecutor later refiled the charges as three separate cases—one for
each armed robbery. According to Leffel, the State did that because he refused to testify
against his codefendants. Leffel then pleaded guilty in all three cases, and the State
amended the kidnapping charges to misdemeanors.

The effect of the State bringing three cases, instead of one, was that Leffel's
presumptive sentences changed. Under our state's sentencing guidelines, a presumptive
sentence is based on the current offense and the extent of a defendant's past offenses
(condensed into a criminal-history score ranging from A, the most serious, to I, the least
serious). The greater the defendant's criminal-history score, the greater the presumptive
sentence for the current offense.

For Leffel, this meant that his presumptive sentences increased. When all of
Leffel's charges were in one criminal case, his criminal-history score was an F, based on
two juvenile convictions. But when the State spread the charges out across three cases,
the guilty plea in each case counted towards Leffel's criminal-history score in the other
two cases. As a result, Leffel's criminal-history score at sentencing had risen to an A, the
most serious score.
3


Under the guidelines, the presumptive sentencing range in each case was between
221 and 247 months in prison. The district court imposed 233-month sentences in each
case and ran each sentence concurrently (serving all sentences at the same time) rather
than consecutively (serving each sentence in sequence). Leffel appealed his sentences,
but our Supreme Court summarily dismissed that appeal because the appellate courts
don't have jurisdiction to review sentences that fall within the presumptive range under
the guidelines, as Leffel's did.

Representing himself, Leffel then filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence
under K.S.A. 22-3504. In it, Leffel argued that the State refiled the charges—thereby
increasing his sentences—because he refused to testify against other people involved in
the robberies. That decision, he said, amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and violated
his constitutional due-process rights. As a result, he asserted, his sentences were illegal.

The district court denied his motion. Although the court criticized the State's
decision to refile, it said that charging decisions are left to the prosecutor's discretion.
Leffel now appeals that decision, this time with the aid of a court-appointed attorney.

ANALYSIS

Leffel argues that the district court erred when it summarily denied his motion to
correct an illegal sentence. Leffel argues that his sentences are unconstitutional and, thus,
illegal. His motion in the district court specifically said that the sentences were
unconstitutional because the State's decision to refile his charges violated his
constitutional due-process rights.

But the Kansas Supreme Court has noted the limited nature of what may be
challenged on a motion to correct an illegal sentence: (1) a sentence imposed by a court
4

that lacks jurisdiction; (2) a sentence that doesn't 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.
Warrior, 303 Kan. 1008, 1009-10, 368 P.3d 1111 (2016). This narrow definition means
that defendants can't use a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge their
sentences on constitutional grounds: "A motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A.
22-3504(1) is an improper procedural vehicle for a constitutional claim." 303 Kan. 1008,
Syl.

Leffel's motion raises only one claim—that his sentences are illegal because the
State's charging decisions violated his due-process rights. That is a constitutional
argument and thus doesn't fall within the narrow limits of an illegal-sentence motion. So
we must affirm the district court's denial of Leffel's illegal-sentence motion.

We affirm the district court's judgment.