McLain v. StateMcLain v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Briscoe
Petitioner Richard Lewis McLain appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
McLain was convicted by jury of kidnapping (
McLain contends the district court should have vacated both convictions. • He contends the district court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of kidnapping because the information was insufficient to charge that offense.
“Richard L. McLain then and there being did unlawfully, feloniously and willfully take another, torwit: Kenneth Jones, by force or threat, with the intent to hold the same Kenneth Jones to facilitate the commission of a crime, to-wit: aggravated robbery, all in violation‘ofK.S.A. 21-3420 .”
In support of his contention that the kidnapping charge was dependent. upon the aggravated robbery charge, McLain cites
State v. Carr,
230 Kan. 322, 634 P.2d 1104 (1981). In
Carr,
the defendant was found guilty of aggravated burglary and attempted rape.
The information is the jurisdictional instrument on which the accused stands trial, and that information must allege each essential element of the offense charged. A conviction predicated on an information which does not sufficiently charge the offense is void. An information is sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense charged, apprises the accused of what he must be prepared to meet, and is specific enough to make a plea of double jeopardy possible. If the facts alleged in the information do not constitute an offense within the context of the statute allegedly violated, the information is fatally defective. Further, the evidence introduced at trial and the jury instructions given have no bearing on this issue. State v. Jones, 242 Kan. 385, 393, 748 P.2d 839 (1988).
Initially, it should be noted that each count in an information is regarded as a separate information and the inclusion of a faulty count does not affect the validity of the remaining counts. Gainey v. United States, 318 F.2d 795, 797 (10th Cir. 1963). Therefore, the defective complaint as to aggravated robbery does not affect the validity of the complaint charging McLain with kidnapping. The validity of the complaint charging kidnapping must be determined independently of the other charge.
The complaint charging McLain with kidnapping alleges he unlawfully, feloniously, and willfully took Kenneth Jones by force or threat in order to facilitate the commission of the crime of *332 aggravated robbery, which is essentially the language of 21-3420. Kansas courts have consistently held an information charging an offense in the statutory language or its equivalent is sufficient. State v. Micheaux, 242 Kan. 192, 197, 747 P.2d 784 (1987). It is apparent from the statutory language that the crime of kidnapping is completed when the defendant forcefully takes another for the purpose of facilitating flight or the commission of any crime. The statute does not require a conviction or even the filing of a complaint on the underlying crime in order to properly charge the defendant with kidnapping. Further, there can be no question that McLain had the requisite intent to support a kidnapping conviction as the Supreme Court in the direct appeal of these convictions found there was sufficient evidence to uphold the kidnapping conviction. The complaint contains the elements of kidnapping and is sufficient to apprise McLain of the charge against him.
Affirmed.