State v. Marks, 490 P.3d 1160

Rickey Marks was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to a hard 25-to-life term. At trial he requested personal copies of the State's discovery; the trial court denied the request but defense counsel had full access under the State’s open-file policy.
On direct appeal the Kansas Supreme Court held Marks had a statutory right to certain personal copies (K.S.A. 22-3212/22-3213) but rejected any constitutional right to them; the court found the trial court’s statutory error harmless. State v. Marks, 297 Kan. 131 (2013).
Marks later sought postconviction relief under K.S.A. 60-1507 and repeatedly moved in state court for postconviction production of discovery; those requests were denied and denied on appeal and in federal habeas proceedings.
The instant appeal challenges the district court’s June 16, 2020 denial of Marks’ pro se motion (filed June 8, 2020) to compel production; on appeal Marks (now with counsel) relies solely on K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3212 and 22-3213 as authority for postconviction discovery.
The State and the Kansas Supreme Court concluded those statutes are limited to pretrial and, at the latest, trial production of discovery; they do not authorize postconviction discovery. The district court’s denial was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3212 and 22-3213 authorize a district court to order postconviction discovery	Marks: The statutes set out comprehensive discovery rules and, read liberally, entitle a defendant to personal copies after conviction	State: Statutory text and timing provisions limit both statutes to pretrial or at most trial production; they contain no postconviction authority	Court: Statutes apply only pretrial/trial and do not permit postconviction discovery; denial affirmed

State v. Marks, 297 Kan. 131 (Kan. 2013) (prior holding that defendant had statutory right to certain personal copies but no constitutional right)
State v. Edwards, 299 Kan. 1008 (Kan. 2014) (describing K.S.A. 22-3212 as a comprehensive pretrial discovery scheme)
State v. Robinson, 309 Kan. 159 (Kan. 2019) (holding K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-237 does not permit postconviction discovery)
Jarvis v. Department of Revenue, 312 Kan. 156 (Kan. 2020) (statutory interpretation principles and plain-language review)
State v. Mundo-Parra, 58 Kan. App. 2d 17 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020) (interpreting K.S.A. 22-3212/22-3213 to apply only before trial)
Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1977) (no general constitutional right to criminal discovery)
United States v. Shrake, 515 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2008) (authority cited for absence of constitutional right to personal discovery copies)
State v. Deavers, 252 Kan. 149 (Kan. 1992) (precedent on discovery and defendant access)
State v. Sherry, 233 Kan. 920 (Kan. 1983) (recognizing defendant may request discovery under K.S.A. 22-3212/22-3213)