State v. Donaldson

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decisions dismissing Appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The lower courts dismissed Appellant’s motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the outcome below, albeit for different reasons, holding that, according to the court’s recent decisions in State v. Wood, 393 P.3d 631 (2017), and State v. Reese, 393 P.3d 599 (2017), the lower courts had jurisdiction to hear and consider Appellant’s motion. However, because that motion advanced no meritorious argument demonstrating that Appellant’s sentence was illegal, Appellant’s claim failed on the merits.

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 108,801 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSEPH V. DONALDSON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT The definition of an illegal sentence does not include a claim that the sentence violates a constitutional provision, and a defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence based on constitutional challenges to his or her sentence will fail as a matter of law. Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed April 10, 2015. Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; ERIC A. COMMER, judge. Opinion filed July 28, 2017. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming and remanding to the district court is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed. Michael P. Whalen, of Law Office of Michael P. Whalen, of Wichita, was on the briefs for appellant. Lance J. Gillett, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee. The opinion of the court was delivered by STEGALL, J.: Joseph V. Donaldson appeals from lower court decisions dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his motion to correct an illegal sentence which challenged the 1 retroactive application of the 2011 amendments to the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq. See State v. Donaldson, No. 108,801, 2015 WL 1782344, at *7 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion) ("We are not persuaded that the trial court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Donaldson's motion challenging the retroactive application of the 2011 amendments to KORA."). We granted Donaldson's petition for review. Our recent decisions in State v. Wood, 306 Kan. 283, 393 P.3d 631 (2017), and State v. Reese, 306 Kan. 279, 393 P.3d 599 (2017), resolve Donaldson's appeal. There, we first held that courts have jurisdiction to entertain motions to correct illegal sentences at any time. We then held that the definition of an illegal sentence does not include a sentence that allegedly violates a constitutional provision. Wood, 306 Kan. at 284-85; Reese, 306 Kan. at 281. Thus, according to our holdings in Wood and Reese, the lower courts had jurisdiction to hear and consider Donaldson's motion as a motion to correct an illegal sentence made pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3504. But that motion advanced no meritorious argument demonstrating Donaldson's sentence was illegal, so his claim fails on the merits. Thus, we affirm the outcome below, albeit for different reasons. See State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 595, 363 P.3d 1101 (2016) (affirming judgment as right for the wrong reason). Affirmed. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.