Landers v. State, 123624

Background

In 2013 Landers pleaded no contest in case No. 12 CR 880 to robbery, aggravated burglary, and criminal possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 130 months; he did not file a direct appeal.
In 2011 Landers had earlier pleaded guilty in a separate case (No. 10 CR 2220) and received a split sentence; he also did not appeal that conviction.
Two years after the 12 CR 880 plea Landers sought to withdraw his plea; after an evidentiary hearing the district court denied the motion as untimely and on the merits, crediting defense counsel over Landers.
This court affirmed the denial of the plea-withdrawal motion on appeal in 2018; mandate issued September 14, 2018.
In August 2019 Landers filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion raising competency and ineffective-assistance claims related to the original plea; the district court summarily denied it as untimely, successive/res judicata, and failing to show manifest injustice.
On appeal Landers challenged only the district court’s conclusions on timeliness and manifest injustice; the appellate court affirmed, also relying on res judicata/previous final judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Landers)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Timeliness under K.S.A. 60-1507(f) (one-year filing rule)	Motion was timely because filed within one year of the appellate mandate affirming plea-withdrawal denial	Landers did not file a direct appeal from the original conviction; one-year period began on termination of appellate jurisdiction after sentencing, so motion filed in 2019 was untimely	Motion untimely; one-year period began after direct-appeal period expired in 2013, so 2019 filing missed deadline
Application of manifest-injustice exception	Mental illness made Landers "mentally unaware" of procedures and excuses late filing	"Mentally unaware" assertion is conclusory and unsupported; lack of legal knowledge or pro se status does not excuse deadline	Manifest-injustice not shown; conclusory mental-illness claim without evidence fails to excuse untimeliness
Res judicata / successive collateral attack	(Implicit) Claims about competency and counsel were properly raised anew in 60-1507	Claims already litigated and decided on appeal; prior final judgment precludes relitigation in a successive 60-1507	Court affirms alternative ground: prior appeal gave final judgment on same claims, so res judicata bars relitigation
Treating prior plea-withdrawal proceeding as direct appeal	The plea-withdrawal appeal should reset the one-year filing clock for 60-1507	No authority supports treating the plea-withdrawal appeal as a direct appeal from the original conviction; Landers also filed plea-withdrawal motion outside direct-appeal timeframe	Argument rejected; plea-withdrawal appeal does not convert into a direct appeal for computing 60-1507 deadlines

Key Cases Cited

White v. State, 308 Kan. 491, 421 P.3d 718 (2018) (standard for summary denial of K.S.A. 60-1507 motions)
Grossman v. State, 300 Kan. 1058, 337 P.3d 687 (2014) (de novo review of summary denials)
State v. Novotny, 297 Kan. 1174, 307 P.3d 1278 (2013) (unchallenged alternative grounds may affirm)
State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 437 P.3d 953 (2019) (appellate judgment is res judicata as to issues raised)
State v. Kingsley, 299 Kan. 896, 326 P.3d 1083 (2014) (issues waived if not raised on appeal)
State v. Martin, 294 Kan. 638, 279 P.3d 704 (2012) (prior 60-1507 motions and decided issues are res judicata)
State v. Meggerson, 312 Kan. 238, 474 P.3d 761 (2020) (failure to support an argument with authority is waiver)
Thuko v. State, 310 Kan. 74, 444 P.3d 927 (2019) (manifest-injustice standard and when time may be extended)
State v. Gilbert, 299 Kan. 797, 326 P.3d 1060 (2014) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Guillory v. State, 285 Kan. 223, 170 P.3d 403 (2007) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules)