State v. Martin
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Kansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Kansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant later filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, arguing that the district court judge lacked jurisdiction to impose multiple, consecutive convictions and sentences for felony murder and aggravated kidnapping. The district court judge summarily denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the judge made insufficient findings of fact to allow for meaningful review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court adequately addressed Defendant’s challenge and reached the correct conclusion.
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,921 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. FREDERICK J. MARTIN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT A district court's decision may be summarily affirmed when the appellate court determines after argument or submission on the briefs that no reversible error of law appears and the appeal is frivolous. Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; R. WAYNE LAMPSON, judge. Opinion filed April 7, 2017. Affirmed. Gerald E. Wells, of Jerry Wells Attorney-at-Law, of Lawrence, was on the brief for appellant. Jerome A. Gorman, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee. The opinion of the court was delivered by BEIER, J. Defendant Frederick J. Martin appeals the district court's summary denial of his motion to correct what he argues are illegal consecutive sentences. 1 In 1986, a jury convicted Martin of first-degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm for the 1985 killing of Eddie Adams. Martin was sentenced to consecutive life terms for the offenses of first-degree murder and aggravated kidnapping, and to 3 to 10 years for unlawful possession of a firearm, to run concurrently with the life sentence for aggravated kidnapping. We considered Martin's direct appeal in State v. Martin, 241 Kan. 732, 740 P.2d 577 (1987). We rejected his argument that his convictions for both felony murder and aggravated kidnapping violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. Martin, 241 Kan. at 741. In the motion to correct illegal sentence underlying this appeal, Martin argued that the district court judge "lacked jurisdiction to impose multiple, consecutive convictions and sentences" for felony murder and aggravated kidnapping. The district court judge summarily denied his motion. Martin now argues that the judge made insufficient findings of fact to allow for meaningful review. Martin has previously raised the same issue in various post-conviction proceedings. Each challenge has failed. See State v. Martin, 294 Kan. 638, 641, 279 P.3d 704 (2012) (motion to correct an illegal sentence; challenge to convictions as multiplicitous barred by res judicata); Martin v. State, No. 91,503, 2004 WL 2848881 (Kan. App. 2004) (unpublished opinion) (K.S.A. 60-1507; Martin may not use K.S.A. 601507 as second appeal to raise double jeopardy); Martin v. State, No. 78,763, unpublished opinion filed May 1, 1998 (Kan. App.) (K.S.A. 60-1507; court's rejection of Martin's double jeopardy claim implicitly renders Martin's multiplicity challenge meritless); Martin v. Roberts, No. 91-3028, 1992 WL 120195 (10th Cir. 1992) (unpublished opinion) (affirming Martin v. Roberts, No. 87-3273, 1991 WL 3134, at *3 [D. Kan. 1991] [unpublished opinion]) (Martin's double jeopardy challenge meritless). 2 In addition to filing these actions, Martin has pursued the same claim unsuccessfully in at least five additional motions to correct illegal sentence and in an unknown number of motions under K.S.A. 60-1507. Though Martin sometimes labels his challenge as one rooted in multiplicity and other times references "double jeopardy," the substance of his argument is always the same. He contests the legal proposition that he could be charged with, convicted of, and sentenced on both first-degree felony murder and the underlying felony of aggravated kidnapping. See State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 970, 305 P.3d 641 (2013) ("'principal danger of multiplicity'" is double jeopardy). We have carefully reviewed the entire record and conclude the district court, yet again, adequately addressed Martin's challenge and reached the correct conclusion. We, therefore, affirm the district court. See Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.042 (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48) ("A case may be affirmed by summary opinion if the court determines after argument or submission on the briefs that no reversible error of law appears and . . . the appeal is frivolous."). 3
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.
