K.S.A. » Chapter 22
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 22-3504 (2026)

Correction of sentence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

22-3504. Correction of sentence. (a) The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time while the defendant is serving such sentence. The defendant shall receive full credit for time spent in custody under the sentence prior to correction. Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, the defendant shall have a right to a hearing, after reasonable notice to be fixed by the court, to be personally present and to have the assistance of counsel in any proceeding for the correction of an illegal sentence.

(b) Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time and after such notice, if any, as the court orders.

(c) For the purposes of this section:

(1) "Illegal sentence" means a sentence: Imposed by a court without jurisdiction; that does not conform to the applicable statutory provision, either in character or punishment; or that is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served at the time it is pronounced. A sentence is not an "illegal sentence" because of a change in the law that occurs after the sentence is pronounced.

(2) "Change in the law" means a statutory change or an opinion by an appellate court of the state of Kansas, unless the opinion is issued while the sentence is pending an appeal from the judgment of conviction.

(d) The amendments made to this section by this act are procedural in nature and shall be construed and applied retroactively.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3504; L. 2017, ch. 62, § 9; L. 2019, ch. 59, § 15; May 23.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 762 cases (342 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: State v. Smith, 441 P.3d 1041 (Kan. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Smith, 441 P.3d 1041 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 61× “60-1507 and K.S.A. 22-3504. The second of these statutes, K.”
State v. Clark, 486 P.3d 591 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 33× “The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced.”
State v. Jamerson, 433 P.3d 698 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 38× “Whether a sentence is illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 22-3504 is also a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.”
State v. McCroy, 486 P.3d 618 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 37× “60-2101 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 to hear the State's appeal of an illegal sentence.”
State v. Murdock, 439 P.3d 307 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 15× “We agree and hold the legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced.”
State v. Berreth, 273 P.3d 752 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 29× “Ten years after Rolland Berreth was convicted and sentenced for one count of aggravated kidnapping and three counts of aggravated criminal sodomy with a child under 14 years of age, he filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504. His appointed…”
State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 14× “2d 618 (1996), stating “[t]he general rule regarding review *1028 of an illegal sentence is that ‘[a] defendant who invites error by stipulating to his or her criminal history cannot request a correction of sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 after pronouncement of sentence.”
State v. Hankins, 372 P.3d 1124 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 14× “A claim that a procedural bar to the appellate review of a sentence violates due process does not fit within the limited definition of an illegal sentence for K.S.A. 22-3504 purposes. 2. Liberal rules of construction cannot transform the reality of a pleading's content or the…”
State v. Sandoval, 425 P.3d 365 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 19× “If a new sentence is pronounced from the bench after probation revocation, any original illegality no longer exists, and the new sentence is not subject to challenge or correction under K.S.A. 22-3504. If the judge instead requires the defendant to serve the original sentence,…”
State v. Redding, 444 P.3d 989 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 11× “3d 859 (motion filed as one under K.S.A. 22-3504 and specifically requesting correction of sentence was properly treated as motion to correct illegal sentence, despite containing some requests for relief only available under 60-1507); Makthepharak v.”
State v. Horton, 423 P.3d 548 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 14× “: *549 Damon Horton seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm the district court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504. The motion challenged the revocation of his probation over 16 years earlier.”
State v. Sartin, 446 P.3d 1068 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 8× “The robbery conviction was remanded on direct appeal and the State opted against re-prosecuting it; Sartin's sentence was reduced to 570 months. State v. Sartin , No.”
Show all 762 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(1) — 203 cases
State v. Jamerson, 433 P.3d 698 (Kan. 2019). “Whether a sentence is illegal within the meaning of K.S.A. 22-3504 is also a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.”
State v. Smith, 441 P.3d 1041 (Kan. 2019). “60-1507 and K.S.A. 22-3504. The second of these statutes, K.”
State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015). “2d 618 (1996), stating “[t]he general rule regarding review *1028 of an illegal sentence is that ‘[a] defendant who invites error by stipulating to his or her criminal history cannot request a correction of sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 after pronouncement of sentence.”
State v. Edwards, 135 P.3d 1251 (Kan. 2006).
State v. Keel, 357 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2015).
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(2) — 25 cases
State v. Smith, 441 P.3d 1041 (Kan. 2019). “60-1507 and K.S.A. 22-3504. The second of these statutes, K.”
State v. Storer, 382 P.3d 467 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Potts, 374 P.3d 639 (Kan. 2016).
State v. Edwards, 440 P.3d 557 (Kan. 2019).
State v. Vanwey, 941 P.2d 365 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(3) — 33 cases
State v. Murdock, 439 P.3d 307 (Kan. 2019). “We agree and hold the legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced.”
State v. Thomas, 415 P.3d 430 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Johnson, 441 P.3d 1036 (Kan. 2019).
State v. Sandoval, 425 P.3d 365 (Kan. 2018). “If a new sentence is pronounced from the bench after probation revocation, any original illegality no longer exists, and the new sentence is not subject to challenge or correction under K.S.A. 22-3504. If the judge instead requires the defendant to serve the original sentence,…”
State v. McCroy, 486 P.3d 618 (Kan. 2021). “60-2101 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 to hear the State's appeal of an illegal sentence.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(B) — 1 case
Thomas (ID 80566) v. Meyer (D. Kan. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(a) — 186 cases
State v. Clark, 486 P.3d 591 (Kan. 2021). “The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced.”
State v. McCroy, 486 P.3d 618 (Kan. 2021). “60-2101 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3504 to hear the State's appeal of an illegal sentence.”
State v. Louis, 476 P.3d 837 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Bradford, 466 P.3d 930 (Kan. 2020).
Williams v. State, 476 P.3d 805 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(b) — 28 cases
State v. Bailey, 491 P.3d 1256 (Kan. 2021).
State v. Peters, 555 P.3d 1134 (Kan. 2024).
State v. Goodridge (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Sheets, 494 P.3d 168 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. White, 494 P.3d 248 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(c) — 18 cases
State v. Gales, 452 P.3d 868 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Adams, 476 P.3d 796 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Shipley, 510 P.3d 1194 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Barrett (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Jacobson, 552 P.3d 1239 (Kan. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(c)(1) — 186 cases
State v. Mitchell, 505 P.3d 739 (Kan. 2022).
State v. Adams, 476 P.3d 796 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Louis, 476 P.3d 837 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Bradford, 466 P.3d 930 (Kan. 2020).
State v. Gulley, 505 P.3d 354 (Kan. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(c)(2) — 16 cases
State v. Adams, 476 P.3d 796 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Clark, 486 P.3d 591 (Kan. 2021). “The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced.”
State v. Bradford, 466 P.3d 930 (Kan. 2020).
State v. Miller (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Jacobson, 552 P.3d 1239 (Kan. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(c)(3) — 1 case
State v. Edmond (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(c)(l) — 1 case
State v. Bedford, 502 P.3d 107 (Kan. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3504(d) — 8 cases
State v. Roat, 466 P.3d 439 (Kan. 2020).
State v. Clark, 486 P.3d 591 (Kan. 2021). “The legality of a sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3504 is controlled by the law in effect at the time the sentence was pronounced.”
State v. Adams, 476 P.3d 796 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Bradford, 466 P.3d 930 (Kan. 2020).
State v. Clark (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.