State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Benton G. Baskin, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Benton G. Baskin timely appeals the district court's summary denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argues the consecutive sentences imposed within the appropriate grid box resulted in an illegal sentence. Upon review of the record, we find he received legal grid box sentences for each of his convictions and the decision to run the sentences for each conviction consecutive does not make his sentence illegal. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

At Baskin's jury trial, he was convicted of four felony counts that stemmed from a rape and other crimes he committed in June 2014. At sentencing in October 2015, the district court denied both Baskin's motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for a new trial. The court moved on to the presentence investigation report, and Baskin did not object to the report finding his criminal score was E. The district court also denied Baskin's motion for a downward departure because it found no substantial and compelling reasons to justify either a durational or dispositional departure. The court sentenced Baskin to a controlling sentence of 492 months, with all four sentences consecutive to one another.

Another panel of our court affirmed both his convictions and sentences on direct appeal in State v. Baskin, No. 115,271, 2017 WL 1367048, at *1 (Kan. App. 2017) (unpublished opinion). The Kansas Supreme Court denied his petition for review. Baskin sought a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in Baskin v. Kansas, 583 U.S. 1189, 138 S. Ct. 1301, 200 L. Ed. 2d 486 (2018), which was denied on March 19, 2018. Baskin then timely filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, which led to no relief. Baskin v. State, No. 124,284, 2022 WL 17172021, at *1 (Kan. App. 2022) (unpublished opinion).

On August 16, 2024, Baskin filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. Baskin argued the district court erred when it sentenced him using the aggravated number in the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), K.S.A. 21-6801 et seq., grid box for each conviction and then ordered him to serve his sentences consecutive to each other without deciding if that decision resulted in manifest injustice. He further questioned whether any aggravating factor was used to enhance his sentence. Several days later, the district court summarily denied Baskin's motion, finding he failed to allege an illegal sentence. And as a result, the district court determined it did not have jurisdiction over the motion.

Baskin filed a notice of appeal in October 2024, regarding the district court's summary dismissal of his motion. Shortly after Baskin filed his notice of appeal, he also filed a pro se motion to alter or amend the district court's decision. The district court also summarily denied this motion, affirming the preceding order determining Baskin failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Baskin subsequently filed another notice of appeal from the district court's order denying his motion to alter or amend, claiming he did not receive notice of the order until February 26, 2025. Finally, another panel of our court granted Baskin leave to docket his appeal instanter on July 10, 2025.

Analysis

Baskin now argues his sentence is illegal because it does not conform to the statutory framework of K.S.A. 21-6819. Specifically, Baskin argues we have jurisdiction to determine whether his previously imposed sentence was an illegal sentence. He further claims a manifest injustice analysis should be applied to all instances of consecutive sentencing because he was sentenced to consecutive aggravated individual sentences.

In addition, Baskin provides his own pro se supplemental brief in which he argues the State failed to conform with notice requirements as mandated under K.S.A. 21-6817(b)(1) in seeking an upward departure.

The State responds the district court correctly considered Baskin's motion, and his motion was not persuasive. The State first notes jurisdiction may possibly exist to consider the illegal sentence claim, but Baskin's presumptive sentence is legal. Alternatively, the State submits Baskin's supplemental argument fails because he relies upon the wrong statutes.

Standard of Review

When a district court summarily denies a motion to correct an illegal sentence, we apply a de novo standard of review because we have the same access to the motion, records, and files as the district court. State v. Mitchell, 315 Kan. 156, 158, 505 P.3d 739 (2022). To the extent there is a jurisdictional question, we have unlimited review. State v. Looney, 299 Kan. 903, 906, 327 P.3d 425 (2014). Likewise, statutory interpretation poses a question of law which is subject to unlimited review. State v. Sartin, 310 Kan. 367, 369, 446 P.3d 1068 (2019).

Baskin's sentence was legally imposed.

“[A] court may correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence.” K.S.A. 22-3504(a). Unless all evidence shows the defendant is not entitled to relief, “the defendant shall have a right to a hearing, after reasonable notice to be fixed by the court, to be personally present and to have the assistance of counsel in any proceeding for the correction of an illegal sentence.” K.S.A. 22-3504(a).

Baskin's main arguments on appeal claim he was improperly sentenced under K.S.A. 21-6819 because the district court incorrectly stacked four individually aggravated grid box sentences to run consecutive which resulted in a manifestly unjust and illegal sentence. But Baskin's assertion is not persuasive as the plain language of K.S.A. 21-6819(b)(4) allows the district court to impose consecutive sentences so long as the total length of the sentence does not exceed twice the base sentence.

An illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1) is a sentence: “Imposed by a court without jurisdiction; that does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment; or that is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served at the time it is pronounced.”

Our review of Baskin's motion reflects—and the district court so found—Baskin failed to assert any factual support to show how the sentence using the high number in the grid box was imposed by a court without jurisdiction; the sentence fails to conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in the character or punishment; and finally how the sentence imposed is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served. See K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1). Instead, he challenges the district court's decision to run his sentences consecutive and does not recognize the decision on whether to run sentences consecutive or concurrent is a discretionary call by the district court. See K.S.A. 21-6819(b).

The plain language of K.S.A. 21-6819(b)(4) allows the district court to impose consecutive sentences so long as the total length of the sentence does not exceed twice the base sentence. Here the district court applied the appropriate high number in the guidelines grid box for each conviction to sentence Baskin to multiple consecutive sentences, and Baskin's total sentence does not exceed twice his base sentence of 246 months.

Finally, we recognize we are statutorily prohibited from entertaining challenges to the imposition of consecutive guideline sentences. K.S.A. 21-6803(s). Consecutive presumptive guideline sentences do not constitute a departure subject to appeal. State v. Bramlett, 273 Kan. 67, 68, 41 P.3d 796 (2002). Baskin's total sentence of 492 months fits squarely under the plain language of the presumptive sentencing range for each of his convictions, which makes the sentences final and not appealable. See K.S.A. 21-6803(q), (s); K.S.A. 21-6820(c)(1); State v. Young, 313 Kan. 724, 740, 490 P.3d 1183 (2021).

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: