Vontress v. State
299 Kan. 607
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Vontress filed a 60-1507 habeas motion untimely, after the 1-year deadline, seeking to challenge Kansas premeditation law.
- District court denied the motion at a nonevidentiary hearing, noting untimeliness and lack of manifest injustice justification.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Vontress failed to allege circumstances preventing timely filing.
- This court granted review to clarify whether manifest injustice under 60-1507(f)(2) can consider the merits of the motion in addition to delay reasons.
- The court held manifest injustice must be evaluated under the totality of circumstances, and the merits alone do not establish manifest injustice here.
- Ultimately, the motion was time-barred and the judgments of the Court of Appeals and district court were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of manifest injustice standard | Vontress argues merits may establish manifest injustice | State argues only delay reasons matter for manifest injustice | Manifest injustice is totality of circumstances, merits may matter |
| Interaction of 60-1507(f) with 60-206(b)(1)(B) | 60-206 should toll untimely filings for excusable neglect | 60-206 does not apply to 60-1507 motions; 60-1507(f) controls | 60-206(b)(1)(B) does not apply; 60-1507(f) governs timeliness |
| Merits assessment and actual outcome | Merits of Kansas premeditation claim could show manifest injustice | Merits do not show manifest injustice given no other circumstances | Merits alone do not create manifest injustice; no override of timeliness here |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolen v. State, 285 Kan. 672 (2008) (time deadline for 60-1507 motions)
- Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1 (2008) (merits considered in manifest injustice analysis)
- Holt, 298 Kan. 469 (2013) (defining manifest injustice and standard of review)
- Toney v. State, 39 Kan. App. 2d 944 (2008) (manifest injustice focus on delay justification)
- Turner, 293 Kan. 1085 (2012) (specific over general statutes control)
- Chavez, 292 Kan. 464 (2011) (specific statute controls over general)
- Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 1107 (2014) (presumption against meaningless legislation)