Wahl v. State
301 Kan. 610
| Kan. | 2015Background
- Duane Wahl pled guilty to first-degree murder in 2010, received a hard 25 life sentence, and expressly waived direct appeal; his plea agreement preserved an exception allowing K.S.A. 60-1507 claims for ineffective assistance of counsel if filed within one year.
- Wahl did not appeal; the appellate-termination date (end of appellate jurisdiction) was December 23, 2010, so the 1-year 60-1507 deadline was December 23, 2011.
- Wahl delivered a pro se 60-1507 motion and a notice of intent to supplement to prison authorities "on or about" December 20, 2011; the district court received those filings January 5, 2012.
- The district court ordered Wahl to file a supporting memorandum within 30 days; Wahl timely mailed a supporting memorandum and his sister's affidavit (received January 26, 2012).
- The district court summarily denied the 60-1507 motion as waived and untimely; the Court of Appeals affirmed but on different grounds, treating the supporting memorandum as an untimely amendment that did not relate back.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding the waiver exception applied, Wahl's initial filing was timely under the prison-mailbox rule, and the court should have considered the court-ordered supporting memorandum rather than treating it as a barred amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wahl waived right to file 60-1507 claim for ineffective assistance | Waiver exception in plea agreement preserved ineffective-assistance claims | Plea language bars collateral attacks generally | Waiver exception applies; district court erred in treating claim as waived |
| Timeliness of initial 60-1507 filing | Initial motion was delivered to prison authorities Dec 20, 2011, within 1-year limit | Certificate date "on or about" is ambiguous; movant not entitled to benefit | Filing deemed timely under prison-mailbox rule; 1-year period ran from Dec 23, 2010 |
| Whether supporting memorandum is an untimely amendment (relation-back) | Memorandum was filed per court order and supplies the omitted factual/legal support; not an amendment | Memorandum is an attempted amendment that does not relate back under Pabst and Rule 183(e) | Memorandum was timely under the court's grant of leave and should have been considered; panel erred to treat it as untimely amendment |
| Proper remedy after procedural errors | Entitled to summary consideration of merits and possible evidentiary hearing | Summary denial appropriate because motion inadequate/untimely/waived | Reverse and remand for district court to consider the motion (and supporting memorandum) on the merits per 60-1507 standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (prison mailbox rule for filing)
- Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1 (relation-back test for 60-1507 amendments)
- Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875 (standards for summary denial, preliminary hearing, or evidentiary hearing on 60-1507)
- Wilson v. State, 40 Kan. App. 2d 170 (applying prison mailbox rule to 60-1507 motions)
- Holt v. State, 290 Kan. 491 (de novo review of summary denials)