Baker v. State, 297 Kan. 486

Baker was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole for 50 years; conviction affirmed but sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing (June 9, 2006; mandate July 5, 2006).
Baker was resentenced to life without parole for 25 years on December 21, 2006; no direct appeal of the new sentence.”
On August 6, 2007, Baker filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel; district court dismissed as untimely.
Court of Appeals reversed, remanding for proceedings to address whether the motion raised substantial issues or warranted an evidentiary hearing.
Supreme Court held that the 1-year time limit for K.S.A. 60-1507 motions begins after the time to appeal from the resentencing expires, and Baker’s motion was timely; remanded for merits review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the 60-1507 deadline start after remand for resentencing?	State: deadline runs from final direct-appeal order.	Baker: deadline starts after resentencing appeal window closes, not from the original mandate.	Deadline begins after the resentencing appeal period ends; motion timely.
Role of Rule 183 and appellate procedures in timing 60-1507 motions?	(State arguments aligned with time-bar rules as applied by the court)	Rule 183 and related provisions prohibit filing while appeal is pending and before appeal period expires.	Rule 183 governs timing; cannot file 60-1507 during pending appeal; timing aligned with resentencing appeal window.

State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41 (2010) (statutory interpretation governs where language is plain; when unclear, consider act as a whole)
State v. Ross, 295 Kan. 1126 (2012) (interpretation of statutory provisions; harmonious construction)
Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589 (1996) (interpretation goals; avoid absurd results)
Swenson v. State, 284 Kan. 931 (2007) (Rule 183 prohibits simultaneous direct appeal and 60-1507 pursuit)
Fischer v. State, 296 Kan. 808 (2013) (permits considering merits where substantial issue shown)
Baker v. State, 42 Kan. App. 2d 949 (2009) (addressed timing when conviction affirmed but sentence remanded)