State v. Reynolds

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 118,961

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

TEILL REYNOLDS,
Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; MICHAEL GROSKO, judge. Opinion filed November 9,
2018. Affirmed.

Teill Reynolds, appellant pro se.

Daniel G. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Derek
Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before HILL, P.J., PIERRON and POWELL, JJ.

PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Teill S. Reynolds of one count of battery and two
counts of rape of T.R., a victim under the age of 14 when defendant was 18 years old or
older. Under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-4643(a)(1)(B) (now K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-
6627[a][1][B]) (Jessica's Law), the district court sentenced Reynolds to concurrent terms
of life imprisonment with not less than 25 years imprisonment for both counts of the off-
grid felony rape. It also sentenced him a 6-month concurrent sentence for the
misdemeanor battery. Reynolds filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence claiming the
charging documents were insufficient to grant the district court jurisdiction; the district
2

court never instructed the jury to find he was 18 years old or older; the State never
presented evidence he was 18 years old or older; and the district court erred in asking the
jury find he was 18 years old or older in a special verdict form. We affirm.

In May 2011, Reynolds was charged with aggravated indecent liberties with a
child under 14 years old and two counts of rape of a child under the age of 14, all off-grid
person felonies. Before trial, the State withdrew the aggravated indecent liberties charge
and added one count of battery, a class B person misdemeanor. Law enforcement, family
members, T.R., and Reynolds testified at trial. Reynolds stipulated to jury instruction No.
9 that he was over 18 years old and T.R. was under 14 years old at the time of the crimes.
Reynolds made no objections to the jury instructions. The district court gave the jury a
special verdict form asking whether it found beyond a reasonable doubt that Reynolds
was 18 years old or older at the time of the crimes if it found him guilty of rape. The jury
found Reynolds was 18 years old or older and convicted him of the two counts of rape of
a child under 14 years of age and one count of battery. The district court sentenced
Reynolds to a term of life imprisonment with not less than 25 years imprisonment for
count one of the off-grid felony rape; a term of life imprisonment with not less than 25
years imprisonment for the second count of off-grid felony rape; and 6 months for the
misdemeanor battery. The sentences were to run concurrently. The Kansas Court of
Appeals affirmed Reynolds' conviction. State v. Reynolds, 109,674, 2014 WL 6909523,
at *15 (Kan. App. 2014) (unpublished opinion).

While his appeal was pending, Reynolds filed various pro se motions with the
district court, including a motion to correct an illegal sentence. After the mandate in
Reynolds' direct appeal was issued, the district court denied his motion to correct an
illegal sentence. Reynolds appeals.

Reynolds alleges the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the
State did not include two essential elements in his charging documents: his age and a
3

reference to Jessica's Law, K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(1). He also alleges jury instruction errors,
claiming the district court failed to give an instruction about whether he was 18 years old
or older and the State failed to present evidence he was 18 years old or older.
Alternatively, he argues the jury impermissibly found he was 18 years old or older in a
special verdict.

These claims are not properly before us because Reynolds is challenging his
convictions not the sentences imposed. See State v. LaMae, 303 Kan. 993, 993-94, 368
P.3d 1110 (2016). The LaMae court found that a challenge of charging documents and
jury instructions are attacks on a conviction and are not properly raised on a motion to
correct an illegal sentence. 303 Kan. at 994. We are duty bound to follow the Kansas
Supreme Court's precedent in LaMae. See State v. Meyer, 51 Kan. App. 2d 1066, 1072,
360 P.3d 467 (2015). The district court correctly dismissed these claims and we affirm
the dismissal.

Affirmed.