State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Roland Keith Hill, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roland Keith Hill appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argues the district court improperly calculated his criminal history score using a prior juvenile adjudication and two adult convictions that he received for crimes he committed while a juvenile. We granted Hill's motion for summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). The State did not file a response. After careful review, we affirm the district court's ruling.

Factual and Procedural History

The State charged Hill with a 16-count information alleging a series of crimes committed over a three-day period in February 1999. A jury acquitted him of 10 of those offenses but convicted him of the following: attempted murder in the first-degree, battery, criminal damage to property, criminal possession of a firearm, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and obstructing official duty. Before sentencing, the district court determined that Hill's criminal history score was A. Included in this calculation was a 1991 juvenile person felony adjudication for terroristic threat in 91-JV-215 (Case 1) and two 1993 adult person felony convictions of aggravated battery in 93-CR-429 (Case 2) and 93-CR-582 (Case 3). The district court then sentenced Hill to a controlling, standard term of 776 months in prison.

Hill filed a direct appeal, raising three issues: (1) Whether his convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer and obstruction of official duty were multiplicitous; (2) whether the district court erred in denying his motion for a change of judge; and (3) whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the element of premeditation to support the attempted first-degree murder conviction. This court found no error and affirmed Hill's convictions. State v. Hill, No. 84,804, 2001 WL 37131969, at *4 (Kan. App. 2001) (unpublished opinion).

In 2003 and 2009, Hill filed motions under K.S.A. 60-1507, raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied both motions, and panels of this court affirmed those rulings. See Hill v. State, No. 103,386, 2011 WL 588617, at *1-3 (Kan. App. 2011) (unpublished opinion); Hill v. State, No. 97,525, 2008 WL 713700, at *1-3 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion).

In August 2014, Hill filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, arguing his criminal history score was not properly determined to be A under State v. Murdock, 299 Kan. 312, 323 P.3d 846 (2014). Hill challenged the calculation as it related specifically to the person versus nonperson classification of his prior offenses for terroristic threat and aggravated battery. The district court denied the motion, which Hill did not appeal.

On April 30, 2025, Hill filed the motion to correct an illegal sentence that is the subject of this appeal. Hill again challenged his criminal history score. But in this motion, Hill primarily claimed that the district court improperly used his convictions in Case 2 and Case 3 to enhance his criminal history score because the district court lacked jurisdiction to try him in adult court. In this regard, Hill argued that the State failed to first initiate proceedings in the juvenile court before requesting a transfer to adult court, in violation of the Kansas Juvenile Code. Hill also argued that the district court improperly considered his juvenile adjudication in Case 1 in violation of prohibitions against ex post facto laws.

The district court denied Hill's motion in a memorandum decision, finding Hill needed to file the appropriate motions in his previous cases rather than in this case to challenge his prior convictions. Hill filed a motion to reconsider, which the district court denied.

The certificate of service for the district court's memorandum decision did not indicate that Hill was mailed a copy of the decision. Hill later filed a late notice of appeal, stating he never received notice of the decision. In a subsequent letter to the court clerk, he explained he had learned from a family member who contacted the court clerk that a decision had been made. In response to a show cause order issued by this court, the State stipulated that Hill was not served with a copy of the court's order. So, after allowing Hill to docket his appeal out of time, our court retained this appeal.

Analysis

Hill argues that the district court erred in denying his most recent motion to correct an illegal sentence. He claims the court lacked jurisdiction under the juvenile code to convict and sentence him under the adult criminal code without a valid juvenile waiver hearing in Case 2 and Case 3. He also challenges the use of his juvenile adjudication in Case 1, asserting that its inclusion in his criminal history violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law over which appellate courts exercise unlimited review. State v. Denney, 321 Kan. 601, 606, 582 P.3d 544 (2026). When a district court summarily denies a motion to correct an illegal sentence, appellate review is de novo because the appellate court has 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).

An illegal sentence is a sentence: (1) imposed by a court without jurisdiction; (2) that does not conform to the applicable statutory provisions, either in character or the term of punishment; or (3) that is ambiguous about the time and manner in which it is to be served. K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1); Mitchell, 315 Kan. at 158.

Hill relies on State v. Breedlove, 285 Kan. 1006, 179 P.3d 1115 (2008), in arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to try him as an adult. In Breedlove, our Supreme Court reversed the district court's denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which included reversing the adult convictions, after the State failed to first begin juvenile proceedings before trying the defendant as an adult. 285 Kan. at 1016-17. Breedlove thus supports the general grounds that Hill relies on in challenging his prior convictions.

The problem for Hill is that Breedlove does not address what he is attempting to do here. Hill is not attacking his sentence and conviction in the present case. Instead, he seeks to invalidate convictions in two other cases so that those convictions can no longer be used in calculating his criminal history score for his sentence in this case.

Kansas appellate courts have consistently held that K.S.A. 22-3504 does not provide a vehicle for challenging an underlying conviction. See State v. Robertson, 309 Kan. 602, 607-08, 439 P.3d 898 (2019). Our appellate courts have primarily applied this rule where the movant challenges their conviction based on an allegedly deficient complaint. See State v. Sims, 294 Kan. 821, 825, 280 P.3d 780 (2012); see also State v. Trotter, 296 Kan. 898, 904, 295 P.3d 1039 (2013) (“To overturn the sentence because of a defect in the complaint, Trotter must obtain a reversal of his conviction, and a motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot be used as a vehicle for a collateral attack on a conviction.”); Robertson, 309 Kan. at 605 (following Trotter); State v. Ross, 315 Kan. 804, 806, 511 P.3d 290 (2022) (following Robertson).

Robertson did acknowledge that Breedlove presented one of two exceptions that our Supreme Court has recognized to this general rule. See Robertson, 309 Kan. at 607-08 (acknowledging exceptions to prohibition against challenging an underlying conviction to establish an illegal sentence as addressed in Breedlove, 285 Kan. at 1014—criminal proceedings involving a juvenile defendant—and State v. Davis, 281 Kan. 169, 174, 130 P.3d 69 [2006]—competency challenges). But Breedlove did not address or authorize the type of collateral attack that Hill lodges here. In Breedlove, the movant challenged his current convictions and sentence. Here, Hill collaterally attacks prior convictions from separate cases to challenge his criminal history score, which affected his ultimate sentence in this case.

Thus, whatever the merits of Hill's challenges to the convictions in Case 2 and Case 3, a motion to correct an illegal sentence in this case is not the proper procedural means for attacking those convictions. The district court therefore did not err in summarily denying relief on this claim.

Hill's argument regarding his juvenile adjudication in Case 1 is also otherwise improper. Directly contrary to this claim, our Supreme Court has held that the consideration of juvenile adjudications which occurred before the effective date of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act in calculating an offender's criminal history score does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws. See State v. LaMunyon, 259 Kan. 54, 67, 911 P.2d 151 (1996); State v. Dixon, 64 Kan. App. 2d 82, 89-90, 545 P.3d 1040 (citing LaMunyon, K.S.A. 21-6811, and K.S.A. 21-6810[a] and finding “juvenile adjudications, while not convictions, are still classified as felonies or misdemeanors in determining an offender's criminal history”), rev. denied 319 Kan. 835 (2024); see also State v. Waller, 299 Kan. 707, 728-29, 328 P.3d 1111 (2014) (holding that the use of constitutionally obtained juvenile adjudications in calculating a criminal history score does not violate due process). Additionally, constitutional challenges generally do not establish an illegal sentence within the meaning of K.S.A. 22-3504. See State v. Johnson, 317 Kan. 458, 461-62, 531 P.3d 1208 (2023).

We add one final observation. Even if Hill's jurisdictional argument were properly before us, the existing record does not appear to support it. The record indicates that Hill had prior juvenile adjudications that may have subjected him to adult prosecution under the statute in effect at the time. See K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 38-1602(b)(3) (excluding from the definition of “ ‘[j]uvenile offender,’ ” “a person 16 years of age or over who is charged with a felony or with more than one offense of which one or more is a felony after having been adjudicated in two separate prior juvenile proceedings as having committed an act which would constitute a felony if committed by an adult and the adjudications occurred prior to the date of the commission of the new act charged”); State v. Williams, 283 Kan. 492, 494-96, 153 P.3d 520 (2007) (finding that when defendant committed his offense, the district court had jurisdiction under K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 38-1602[b][3] to try him as an adult, so defendant's resulting sentence was not an illegal sentence subject to correction under K.S.A. 22-3504); Hunt v. State, No. 112,743, 2015 WL 5458571, at *6-7 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion) (applying Williams and also finding appellant precluded from collaterally attacking sentences which were validly imposed at the time the offenses were committed).

Conclusion

Hill cannot use K.S.A. 22-3504 to collaterally attack prior convictions that were used in calculating his criminal history score. Further, his challenge to the inclusion of his juvenile adjudication in calculating his criminal history score is refuted by clear precedent from the Kansas Supreme Court. The district court correctly denied Hill's motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: