State v. Kimberlin

── State v. Kimberlin ── Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 129,036 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SHANNON L. KIMBERLIN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; CHRISTOPHER MAGANA, judge. Submitted without oral argument. Opinion filed June 5, 2026. Affirmed. Craig Shultz, of Shultz Law Office, P.A., of Wichita, for appellant. Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, for appellee. Before COBLE, P.J., HURST, J., and PAULA HOFAKER, District Judge, assigned. PER CURIAM: Shannon L. Kimberlin pled no contest to two counts of electronic solicitation. At sentencing, the district court orally pronounced a sentence of 147 months of imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively, and granted Kimberlin's departure motion, placing him on probation. The sentencing journal entry later filed showed the sentences were to be served concurrently yet listed the total term of imprisonment as 294 months. At Kimberlin's first probation violation hearing, the district court modified the terms of his probation, ordered a quick-dip sanction, and reinstated probation. The journal entry of probation violation hearing again indicated the sentences 1 for the two counts were to be served concurrently and, this time, listed the total term of imprisonment as 147 months. At Kimberlin's second probation violation hearing, the district court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve his underlying sentence. The journal entry of probation revocation hearing indicated the sentences—294 months total—were to be served consecutively. Kimberlin appeals by challenging the consecutive imposition of the sentences, arguing that his sentence is either illegal or was improperly modified. We disagree and affirm the district court's decision to correctly reflect his sentences by nunc pro tunc order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2014, Kimberlin pleaded no contest to two counts of electronic solicitation, each a severity level one person felony. The district court held a sentencing hearing and orally ordered him to serve 147 months in prison for each count, to be served consecutively, with 36 months of postrelease supervision. The court granted Kimberlin a downward dispositional departure to 60 months of probation. The journal entry of sentencing, filed 8 days later, indicates the district court sentenced Kimberlin to 147 months of imprisonment on each count, which reflects the low range in the guidelines box. In the section of the journal entry of sentencing addressing count two, a box is checked that reads: "Concurrent to Count(s) 1." But in the recap section of the journal entry, it shows the total imposed sentence is 294 months. In early 2015, Kimberlin's supervising officer alleged he violated the terms of his probation. At the probation violation hearing on March 10, 2015, the court found Kimberlin violated his probation and ordered new conditions of probation and a three-day quick-dip sanction. The journal entry of probation violation hearing reflects the same sentence as the original journal entry of sentencing, namely that the sentences were to be served concurrently, except that the total term of imprisonment says 147 months. 2  Later in 2015, Kimberlin's intensive supervising officer again alleged he committed probation violations. The court held a hearing over two days in March and April 2016. The journal entry of