State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jacob Zachary White, Appellant. (2026)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jacob Zachary White appeals the denial of two motions to correct an illegal sentence. He argues the district court improperly contradicted his plea agreement by imposing consecutive sentences. We granted White'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. Finding no error, we affirm the district court's decision.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 22-CR-1583 and 22-CR-2261 the State charged White with two separate counts of battery against a juvenile corrections officer in violation of K.S.A. 21-5413(c)(3)(B). White ultimately decided to plead guilty to both offenses in exchange for the State's assurance that it would dismiss his remaining charges and join in White's request for concurrent sentences.

At the sentencing hearing, the district court first acknowledged the parties’ agreement to concurrent sentences. Nevertheless, it imposed prison terms of 57 months in 22-CR-1583 and 32 months in 22-CR-2261, and it ordered White to serve the sentences consecutive to one another followed by 24 months of postrelease supervision. The journal entry for each case memorialized those terms as the sentence the judge pronounced from the bench. White did not pursue an appeal of his sentences.

White later filed two motions contending that the sentence imposed by the district court was illegal because it failed to order the prison terms to run concurrent as set forth in the parties’ plea agreement. The district court denied both motions on the grounds that it intentionally ordered consecutive sentences. Its written order clarified that White does not have a constitutional right to either concurrent terms or a sentence that aligns with the terms of a plea agreement.

The case now comes before this court for a determination of whether the district court erred when it denied White's motions. His claim of error on appeal essentially reiterates the argument that he made to the district court—the district court imposed an illegal sentence because it failed to run his prison terms concurrent.

Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law over which appellate courts exercise unlimited review. State v. Daniels, 319 Kan. 340, 342, 554 P.3d 629 (2024). When a district court summarily denies a motion to correct an illegal sentence, the appellate court applies a de novo standard of review because it 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 one: (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. White's claim does not fall within any of these categories; therefore, the district court properly concluded that the avenue chosen by White did not entitle him to relief.

The remedy that White is pursuing—an order for the district court to impose concurrent sentences as set forth in the plea agreement—is not one that he is entitled to. Rather, the judge was not bound by the sentencing recommendations the parties agreed to as part of their plea agreement. State v. McNabb, 312 Kan. 609, 614, 478 P.3d 769 (2021). White attested to an awareness of that reality when he signed the plea agreement and reaffirmed his understanding of that principle during his appeal to this court. That concept has not been altered in any way.

In the interest of clarity, we would simply point out that the sentencing framework that governs the manner and type of punishment a district court can impose in any given case illustrates that White's sentence is not tainted by any errors. The Revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act directs district courts to sentence defendants in accordance with the presumptive sentence set forth under the sentencing guidelines. K.S.A. 21-6815(a). An offender's presumptive sentence is dictated by that point on the sentencing grid where the severity level of their crime intersects with their criminal history score. See K.S.A. 21-6803(q) (“ ‘presumptive sentence’ ” means the sentence contained within the grid block that is the product of “the combined effect of the crime severity ranking of the offender's current crime of conviction and the offender's criminal history”). Here, White's sentences of 57 and 32 months’ imprisonment, respectively, fell squarely within the statutory range established by those factors in his cases. Additionally, there is no definitive criteria that controls when a court must order consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. State v. Macormac, 321 Kan. 429, 433, 580 P.3d 36 (2025). Rather, the district court's only obligation with respect to this issue was “to ensure that its exercise of discretion [was] not arbitrary, unreasonable, fanciful, or based on an error of fact or law.” 321 Kan. at 433.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, we are unable to find that the district court erred when it denied White's motions to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm the district court's judgment.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam: