State v. Mitchell
297 Kan. 118
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Mitchell was convicted of felony murder in 1995 and affirmed on direct appeal (Mitchell I).
- He filed two K.S.A. 60-1507 motions for ineffective assistance after the direct appeal.
- In 2011, Mitchell filed a 60-260(b)(4) motion claiming his conviction was void due to omitted lesser-included-offense instructions.
- The district court summarily denied the 60-260(b)(4) motion as time-barred, a successive claim, and meritless.
- The court held that 60-260(b)(4) does not provide postconviction relief from a criminal conviction or sentence.
- Mitchell appealed, urging overruling of Smith and application of Berry to create a 60-260(b)(4) remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 60-260(b)(4) provides postconviction relief for void criminal judgments | Mitchell (Mitchell) argues Berry creates relief under 60-260(b)(4). | State contends 60-260(b)(4) is a civil mechanism, not available for criminal judgments. | 60-260(b)(4) not available for void judgments in criminal cases. |
| Whether Smith v. State remains controlling to require exclusive use of 60-1507 | Mitchell seeks to bypass Smith using Berry-based changes. | State maintains Smith remains binding; 60-1507 exclusive remedy. | Smith remains controlling; 60-260(b)(4) cannot substitute for 60-1507. |
| Whether Berry’s changes justify applying 60-260(b)(4) to Mitchell’s case | Berry changes the standard for lesser-included offenses should affect 60-260(b)(4). | Berry does not retroactively alter Smith or create 60-260(b)(4) relief in this context. | Berry does not authorize 60-260(b)(4) relief for Mitchell. |
| Timeliness and potential for exceptional circumstances to permit successive 1507 relief | Mitchell relies on exceptional circumstances to permit successive 1507 relief. | Exceptional circumstances do not convert 60-260(b)(4) into a viable postconviction route. | Timeliness and exceptional-circumstances rules do not salvage 60-260(b)(4) relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 199 Kan. 132 (1967) (exclusive remedy: 60-1507; 60-260 not available for collateral attack)
- State v. Berry, 292 Kan. 493 (2011) (changes in law; retroactivity; lesser-included offenses context)
- United States v. McCalister, 601 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2010) (Rule 60(b) is civil, not available for criminal sentence challenges)
- State v. Kelly, 291 Kan. 868 (2011) (exceptional circumstances for successive postconviction relief)
- State v. Breedlove, 285 Kan. 1006 (2008) (consideration of CPC provisions in postconviction context)