Fischer v. State
295 P.3d 560
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Fischer, a prisoner, filed a pro se 60-1507 motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing in 2007; Fischer appeared by telephone, with witnesses in court and one witness by deposition.
- The record shows Fischer objected to nonphysical presence; objections were overruled without explanation.
- The Court of Appeals majority held telephonic participation insufficient and ordered Fischer transported for a new evidentiary hearing.
- This Court reverses the Court of Appeals on discretionary authority but remands for a more complete record to decide whether Fischer must be transported or can participate by electronic means.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prisoner must be physically present at 60-1507 evidentiary hearing | Fischer argues presence required by Lujan | State contends discretion allows nonphysical participation | No bright-line rule; discretion to permit electronic participation where meaningful |
| Role of district court discretion in production method | Discretion should favor production or meaningful participation | Production is not always required; may use electronic means | District court may tailor production method and must justify on the record |
| Adequacy of the record on production decision | Record insufficient to show rationale for telephone use | Record supports district court’s decision | Remand for a more comprehensive record on whether production by transport or teleconference is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. State, 270 Kan. 163 (2000) (three-prong sequencing for 60-1507 motions and presence where substantial issues exist)
- Bellamy v. State, 285 Kan. 346 (2007) (standard of review for the three Lujan avenues; does not create bright-line rule on presence)
- State v. Burnett, 194 Kan. 645 (1965) (presence recommended for substantial issues; informed by Hayman principles)
- King v. State, 200 Kan. 461 (1968) (distinguishes substantial-issue cases and discretionary presence)
- State v. Ji, 255 Kan. 101 (1994) (presence not universal requirement; discretion governs at times)
- State v. Andrews, 228 Kan. 368 (1980) (postconviction proceedings are civil; not all criminal-rights apply)