Thompson v. StateThompson v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Price
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Price, J.:
Plаintiff, Burton D. Thompson, being confined in the state penitentiary under a sentence of life imprisonment, filed a mоtion to vacate the judgment and sentence under the provisions of
He has appealed from аn order and judgment denying relief, and the principal question presented is whether the state gave proper and sufficient notice of its intention to invoke the habitual criminal statute.
Although a proceeding under
The background of the matter is this:
*319
In 1962, in the district court of Sedgwick county, defendant, being represented by experiencеd retained counsel, was convicted by a jury of the offense of attempting to cheat and defraud (G. S. 1949, 21-101 and 21-551, now
A motion for a new trial was filed and, after argument thereon, was overruled. The court then inquired if there were any legal reasons why sentence should not be imposed. None being offered, the court proсeeded to pronounce sentence, but was interrupted by the assistant county attorney who stated thаt he had evidence of prior convictions so as to invoke the habitual criminal statute (G. S. 1949, 21-107a, now
“Well, if he desires additional time we will set thе ruling on the motion for new trial aside and hold it in abeyance to preserve his appeal.”
Following consultation with defendant, his counsel replied:
“We will not request additional time, your Honor.”
The state then introduced evidence of four previous felony convictions—three being in the state of Texas and one in the state of Missouri. It was stipulated that defendant was one and the same person as the defendant in those cases.
Following this the court, after finding the fact of the prior felony convictions, again inquirеd if there were any legal reasons why sentence should not be imposed. Counsel for defendant replied:
“Yes, because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, your Honor. My argument earlier goes to that.”
*320
Thereupon defendant was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for the remainder of his natural life. (See G. S. 1949, 21-107a and 21-109, now
Defendant did not appeal.
In 1964, on a date not shown, defendant, being confined under the 1962 sentenсe of life imprisonment, filed a motion under the provisions of
Following a hearing on the motion the court found that defendant had received proper notice, that his rights had not been violated in any way, that he had not been denied due process of law, and denied the motion.
Defendant, through court appointed counsel, has appealed from thе denial of his motion—and makes three contentions.
It first is contended the habitual criminal statute is an ex post facto law in that it aggravates the crime and makes the punishment therefor greater than at the time the crime was committed, thus permitting the court to inflict a greater рenalty than the law annexed to the crime at the time of its commission, and that such ex post facto application оf the statute to enhance the punishment amounts to a deprivation of defendant’s right to due procеss of law.
A like contention has been considered by this court and held to be without merit. (Cochran v. Simpson, 143 Kan. 273, 276, 53 P. 2d 502.)
It next is contended that by the application of the habitual criminal statute defendant was placed in double jeopardy in that for the second time he was placed in jeopardy for offenses for which he not only had been triеd, but also punished.
This contention also has been considered and held to be without merit. (Johnson v. Crouse, 191 Kan. 694, 700, 383 P. 2d 978.)
Finally, it is contended thаt defendant was denied due process of law in that he did not receive proper notice of the state’s intention to invoke the provisions of the habitual criminal statute.
The necessity of, and what constitutеs proper notice, is discussed fully in Browning v. Hand, 284 F. 2d 346, (10th Circuit) cert. den., 369 U. S. 821, 7 L. Ed. 2d 786, 82 S. Ct. 833; Sanders v. Hand, 190 Kan. 457, 375 P. 2d 785, and Johnson v. Crouse, above, and there is *321 no occasion here to repeat what was there said and held. The facts of what transpired with respect to this matter have been related. They establish that defendant, who was represented by his own counsel, was given ample opportunity to defend against the state’s оffer of evidence of prior felony convictions. His contention that he was not given proper notice is completely without merit.
The order denying defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and sentence is affirmed.