Jenkins v. State
122906
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jul 16, 2021Background
- Jenkins was convicted in 2011 (including felony murder) and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed; mandate issued August 24, 2018.
- He filed a pro se K.S.A. 60-1507 motion raising ineffective-assistance, prosecutorial/new evidence, jury instruction error, juror misconduct, counsel conflict, and consolidation claims; the motion is signed July 20, 2019 and docketed October 1, 2019.
- The State moved to dismiss as untimely under the one-year deadline in K.S.A. 60-1507(f)(1); the district court summarily dismissed and denied reconsideration, noting the filing postdated the mandate and that Jenkins offered no explanation for delay.
- Jenkins asserted the prison mailbox rule: he claims he gave the original petition to prison mail on July 29, 2019 (within one year), the mailing was returned for lack of postage on August 21, 2019, he then amended the petition and resubmitted it for mailing September 30, 2019.
- The original petition is not in the record, so the court could not verify the original mailing date or whether the September filing was an amendment that would relate back to the July submission.
- The Court of Appeals held the record does not conclusively establish untimeliness, applied the prison mailbox rule as available for 60-1507 motions, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 60-1507 motion | Jenkins: original petition was given to prison mail July 29, 2019, so timely under prison mailbox rule | State: petition filed Oct 1, 2019, is 38 days late under one-year rule | Court: record does not conclusively show untimeliness; reversal and remand so timeliness can be resolved below |
| Application of prison mailbox rule to 60-1507 filings | Jenkins: rule deems motion filed when given to prison authorities | State: disputes applying rule (relying on unpublished panels) | Court: applies Supreme Court precedent (Wahl) so mailbox rule is available to 60-1507 movants |
| Whether September filing is an amendment that "relates back" | Jenkins: September filing amended original July petition and should relate back | State: September submission is a new, untimely filing | Court: relation-back unresolved because original petition is missing; cannot conclude untimely without further factfinding |
| Need for evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claims | Jenkins: claims warrant an evidentiary hearing | State: argues dismissal appropriate as untimely, so merits not reached | Court: did not decide merits; remanded so timeliness and relation-back can be addressed before considering evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Beauclair v. State, 308 Kan. 284 (2018) (standard for de novo review when a 60-1507 motion is summarily dismissed)
- Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875 (2014) (movant must plead an evidentiary basis beyond conclusory claims to obtain an evidentiary hearing)
- State v. Jenkins, 308 Kan. 545 (2018) (prior Kansas Supreme Court decision affirming Jenkins' convictions)
- Wahl v. State, 301 Kan. 610 (2015) (Supreme Court applied the prison mailbox rule to a 60-1507 motion)
- Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1 (2008) (amendments relate back when they arise from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence)
- State v. Rodriguez, 305 Kan. 1139 (2017) (directive to follow Kansas Supreme Court precedent)