State v. Kingsley
299 Kan. 896
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Kingsley was convicted in 1991 of multiple offenses including first-degree murder and sentenced to three consecutive terms; his direct appeal addressed jury instruction on premeditation and unanimity for the hard 40 sentence.
- On direct appeal, this court rejected Kingsley’s challenges to the jury instruction and to the unanimity issue, upholding the premeditated murder conviction and the hard 40 sentence.
- After numerous collateral challenges, Kingsley filed a pro se motion for relief from judgment in 2012 under statutes governing postconviction collateral attacks; the district court summarily denied it as barred by res judicata.
- The State argued, and the district court agreed, that K.S.A. 60-260(b)(4), 60-260(b)(6), and 60-2606 do not provide collateral-relief procedures for criminal convictions, and that the claims were barred by res judicata.
- Kingsley’s appellate counsel urged recharacterization under K.S.A. 60-1507, but the court noted untimeliness under 60-1507(f) and required extension for manifest injustice; ultimately the court held the action barred by res judicata and the exclusive remedial scheme of 60-1507.
- The court affirmed, holding that relief cannot be obtained under 60-260(b)(4)/(6) or 60-2606 and that the res judicata bar precludes consideration of the merits. Moritz, J., did not participate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 60-260(b)(4)/(6) provides collateral relief from conviction | Kingsley argues for relief under 60-260(b)(4)/(6) | State contends these provisions do not govern collateral attacks | No; these statutes do not apply to collateral attacks |
| Whether res judicata bars Kingsley's current motion | Kingsley asserts new or meritorious grounds survive; no waiver | Res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal | Yes; claims barred by res judicata |
| Whether K.S.A. 60-1507 would authorize relief and timeliness issues | If applicable, relief should be considered; untimeliness ignored | 60-1507 exclusive remedy; untimeliness bars relief | Not applicable; untimeliness and exclusivity foreclose relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Neer, 247 Kan. 137 (Kan. 1990) (res judicata and collateral-attack limitations)
- State v. Mitchell, 297 Kan. 118 (Kan. 2013) (60-260(b) not for collateral attacks; 60-1507 exclusive remedy)
- Smith v. State, 199 Kan. 132 (Kan. 1967) (60-1507 exclusive remedy for collateral attack)
- Jayhawk Equipment Co. v. Mentzer, 191 Kan. 57 (Kan. 1963) (definition of res judicata elements)
- State v. Cheffen, 297 Kan. 689 (Kan. 2013) (juror-polling issue raised for first time on appeal)