Bridges v. State
| Decision Date | 10 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 44293,44293 |
| Citation | 421 P.2d 45,197 Kan. 704 |
| Parties | Vernon J. BRIDGES, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A void sentence may be changed to a valid one and an erroneous or irregular sentence is considered the same as a void sentence for the purpose of correction by the substitution of a new and valid sentence.
2. When a defendant appears for resentencing the authority of the trial court is limited to a consideration of the identical facts and conditions existing at the time of the imposition of the original sentence.
Basil C. Marhofer, Ness City, argued the cause and was on the briefs, for appellant.
Tom Smyth, County Atty., argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Atty. Gen., was with him on the briefs, for appellee.
HATCHER, Commissioner:
This is an appeal from a judgment in a proceeding under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507 brought for the purpose of having a sentence corrected.
On March 2, 1961, the appellant was bound over to the district court for trial by the county court of Ness County on two separate charges-one for larceny of an automobile and the other for escape from the Ness County jail. On May 3, 1961, he was brought before the district court in response to the informations filed against him covering the two charges. An attornry was appointed to represent him, and the state announced that it intended to ask for punishment and sentence under the habitual criminal act, K.S.A. 21-107a and 21-109, in the event of a plea of guilty or a conviction.
After consulting with his court appointed attorney the appellant entered his plea of guilty to both charges. On May 4, 1961, the state introduced certified copies of journal entries showing previous convictions of two felonies in the district court of Reno County-one for the theft of an automobile and the other for breaking prison. The appellant was then sentenced in each of the Ness County cases to not less than fifteen years and no more than thirty years as an habitual criminal.
On June 29, 1964, appellant filed his petition challenging the validity of the sentences under the habitual criminal act in the two Ness County cases. An attorney was appointed to represent him. On October 6, 1964, the district court concluded that the sentences were--
'* * * in violation of the habitual criminal statutes of the State of Kansas, being G.S.1949, (K.S.A.) 21-107a and 21-109, and that the judgments in those cases should be set aside and the petitioner be brought before the District Court of Ness County, Kansas, and resentenced according to law.'
The record does not disclose the basis for the conclusion that the sentences were in violation of the habitual criminal act. We must assume it involved the conviction for breaking prison in the district court of Reno County.
The appellant was brought before the district court of Ness County for resentencing on December 1, 1964. The state again announced--
'* * * the state notifies the defendant and his counsel in open court that the state intends to ask for punishment and sentence of the defendant under G.S.1949, (K.S.A.) 21-107a and 21-109 and in support thereof will offer evidence of previous felony convictions of said defendant.'
The state then introduced evidence of a previous conviction of a felony in the district court of Russell County, Kansas and reintroduced the previous conviction of theft of an automobile in the district court of Reno County, Kansas. The district court of Ness County proceeded to resentence the appellant on the charge for larceny of an automobile and the charge for escaping jail, each for a term of not less than fifteen years or more than thirty years, the sentences to run concurrently.
The appellant's motion for a rehearing was denied, hence this appeal.
The appellant contends that it was error for the trial court to admit new evidence of a previous conviction (conviction in the district court of Russell County) for the purpose of resentencing under the habitual criminal act, and that it was error to readmit the conviction in the district court of Reno County for the same purpose.
The state contends that where the original sentences were void new evidence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mann v. State
...by the appellant in his brief. Cases which have dealt with this point are State v. O'Connor, 186 Kan. 718, 353 P.2d 214; Bridges v. State, 197 Kan. 704, 421 P.2d 45; Richardson v. Hand, 182 Kan. 326, 320 P.2d 837; and Chambers v. State, For the reasons heretofore stated we hold the trial co......
-
State v. Fountaine, 44831
...136 Kan. 283, 15 P.2d 443; State v. Looney, 181 Kan. 402, 312 P.2d 212; Richardson v. Hand, 182 Kan. 326, 320 P.2d 837; Bridges v. State, 197 Kan. 704, 421 P.2d 45; Chambers v. State, 199 Kan. 483, 430 P.2d 241, this date In this respect Kansas follows the decided weight of authority in thi......
-
State v. Garrett
...It is not here contended that any new evidence of unpleaded prior convictions was received at the resentencing hearing. Bridges v. State, 197 Kan. 704, 421 P.2d 45, where a new felony conviction in Russell County, Kansas, was first brought into the case when defendant appeared for correctio......
-
State v. Wilson, 52243
...of the identical facts and conditions existing at the time of the imposition of the original sentence." Bridges v. State, 197 Kan. 704, 706, 421 P.2d 45 (1966). Also see State v. Coe, 223 Kan. 153, 574 P.2d 929, Syl. P 9; State v., Daegele, 206 Kan. 379, 479 P.2d 891, Syl. P 1, 479 P.2d 891......