State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Joseph J. Leshore, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joseph Leshore appeals the district court's imposition of a 36-month term of postrelease supervision, claiming this portion of his sentence was illegal because Kansas law imposes 24 months of postrelease supervision for his felony conviction. We agree and thus granted Leshore's motion for summary disposition under Supreme Court Rule 7.041(b) (2026 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 48). We now vacate the 36-month term of postrelease supervision announced at sentencing. But because the district court's amended journal entry already reflects the correct 24-month term, no remand is necessary after we vacate the illegal oral pronouncement.

In November 2025, Leshore pleaded guilty to aggravated battery, a level 5 felony, and driving under the influence, a class B misdemeanor. The district court held a sentencing hearing in January 2026 and ultimately announced a controlling sentence of 122 months of imprisonment with 36 months of postrelease supervision. After the hearing, the court memorialized the pronounced sentence in a written journal entry. But later that month, the court amended the journal entry, purporting to change Leshore's postrelease-supervision term from 36 months to 24 months, as required by K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1)(B).

Leshore has now appealed. While he agrees that the appropriate term of postrelease supervision is 24 months, as reflected in the amended journal entry, he claims that the case must be remanded for resentencing because the orally pronounced sentence—not the sentence in the journal entry—controls. But recent Kansas Supreme Court caselaw undermines his position.

As a starting point, K.S.A. 22-3504(a) allows the court to correct an illegal sentence at any time, even if the argument is first raised on appeal. State v. Gomez, 320 Kan. 3, 22, 561 P.3d 908 (2025). A sentence is illegal if it “does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment.” K.S.A. 22-3504(c)(1). “Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law that is subject to de novo appellate review.” State v. Johnson, 320 Kan. 246, 247, 564 P.3d 782, cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 222 (2025).

As Leshore notes, a sentence is effective upon its pronouncement from the bench. 320 Kan. at 248. When the journal entry differs from the pronounced sentence, the oral pronouncement controls. State v. Redick, 317 Kan. 146, 147, 526 P.3d 672 (2023). And although courts may correct clerical and typographical errors through orders nunc pro tunc—the tool the district court attempted to use here—a nunc pro tunc order by itself cannot modify the sentence announced at the sentencing hearing. See State v. Potts, 304 Kan. 687, 709, 374 P.3d 639 (2016).

Postrelease supervision is part of a defendant's sentence. State v. Nunez, 319 Kan. 351, 355, 554 P.3d 656 (2024). Leshore pleaded guilty to a level 5 felony, for which Kansas law imposes a postrelease-supervision term of 24 months. See K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1)(B). The 36 months of postrelease supervision pronounced by the district court at the sentencing hearing did not conform with K.S.A. 22-3717 and was illegal.

Even so, recent Kansas Supreme Court decisions have demonstrated that this error in pronouncing Leshore's postrelease supervision does not require a remand for resentencing. In State v. Brown, 320 Kan. 426, 569 P.3d 909 (2025), the district court had mistakenly imposed a term of lifetime postrelease supervision—instead of lifetime parole—at the sentencing hearing but later entered an amended journal entry correcting its error. The Supreme Court found that the orally pronounced supervision term was illegal and thus vacated that portion of the sentence. 320 Kan. at 433-34. But the court concluded that it was unnecessary to remand the case for resentencing because “the journal entry and its amendments align[ed] with” the court's legal conclusion to vacate the erroneous pronouncement. 320 Kan. at 433.

We follow a similar path here. Leshore is correct that the pronounced 36-month term of postrelease supervision was illegal. We vacate that portion of Leshore's sentence. But because the court's amended journal entry reflects the correct term of postrelease supervision required by Kansas law, no remand is necessary.

We vacate the orally pronounced term of postrelease supervision but affirm the postrelease supervision term included in the district court's amended journal entry. No new sentencing hearing is necessary.

Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

Per Curiam: