350 P.3d 1
Kan. Ct. App.2015Background
- Scaife was convicted on multiple counts; Kansas Supreme Court affirmed all convictions and sentences except vacating first-degree murder and remanding for retrial. State v. Scaife, 286 Kan. 614, 186 P.3d 755.
- Mandate issued September 24, 2008; Scaife did not seek certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- On remand Scaife pleaded to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced January 15, 2009; he waived direct appeal of that sentence.
- Scaife filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion on January 6, 2010, alleging attorney disqualification, ineffective assistance of replacement counsel, and fatal variance between information and proof.
- District court summarily dismissed the 60-1507 motion as untimely under K.S.A. 60-1507(f); Scaife appealed. The appellate court reviews statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the 1-year K.S.A. 60-1507 filing period begin? | Scaife: clock began 14 days after his January 15, 2009 resentencing (time to perfect direct appeal), so his Jan 6, 2010 motion was timely. | State: clock began when Supreme Court mandate issued (or 90 days later for certiorari), so motion was filed after the 1-year limit. | Court held the clock began on issuance of the mandate (Sept 24, 2008) for affirmed convictions; Scaife s motion filed Jan 6, 2010 was untimely. |
| Effect of vacated count and remand on timeliness for challenges to affirmed convictions | Scaife: remand/resentencing on one count started a new period for all claims. | State: affirmed convictions became final on mandate; remand as to one count did not extend time to challenge affirmed convictions. | Court held remand of the murder count did not delay finality as to the other affirmed convictions; those became final on mandate. |
| Whether Scaife was "in custody under sentence" for purposes of 60-1507 before resentencing on the vacated count | Scaife: implied argument that resentencing triggered custody and thus the clock. | State: Scaife was already in custody under sentence as to the affirmed convictions upon issuance of mandate. | Court held Scaife was in custody under sentence and could attack affirmed convictions after mandate; Baker limited only where resentencing left movant not in custody under the new sentence. |
| Whether plea on remanded count cured prior errors and affected 60-1507 claims | Scaife: asserted errors dating to original trial could support his motion. | State: reversal and plea on remand cured prior errors as to that count, so 1507 claims must concern post-remand proceedings. | Court held errors as to the vacated count were cured by reversal and plea; 1507 claims must relate to conviction/sentence for which judgment was final. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. State, 297 Kan. 486 (court held 60-1507 filing period tied to termination of appellate jurisdiction on resentencing; rejected starting clock at earlier mandate date when movant was not yet in custody under a final sentence)
- Guder v. State, 293 Kan. 763 (explaining limited circumstances sentencing court may alter legal sentences after guidelines enactment)
- Rawlins v. State, 39 Kan. App. 2d 666 (construing "in custody under sentence of a court" broadly)
- Edgar v. State, 281 Kan. 30 (plea waives prior procedural defects)
- Carr v. State, 300 Kan. 1 (vacatur on direct appeal cures prior errors as to that count)
- Swenson v. State, 284 Kan. 931 (prohibiting simultaneous direct appeal and 60-1507 motion)