Chambers v. State
| Decision Date | 12 July 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 44956,44956 |
| Citation | 199 Kan. 483,430 P.2d 241 |
| Parties | Samuel Lee CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Findings which are supported by substantial competent evidence will not be set aside on appeal.
2. In an action brought pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507, the uncorroborated testimony or statements of the movant are not sufficient to sustain his burden of proof.
3. Where a void sentence has been imposed against a defendant it is the duty of the court to set the same aside and to impose a valid sentence.
4. The record in an action brought under K.S.A. 60-1507 is examined and it is held that the trial court did not err in any of the particulars alleged.
Jerry J. Miller, Olathe, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Hugh H. Kreamer, Asst. County Atty., argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Atty. Gen., and James W. Bouska, County Atty., were with him on the brief, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Samuel Lee Chambers, from an order overruling his motion to vacate a sentence imposed against him for robbery in the first degree.
Most of the relevant facts are undisputed. On April 23, 1962, the district court of Johnson County appointed Mr. Richard L. Roberts, of Olathe, Kansas, to represent the plaintiff and his co-defendant, Raymond Clayton Wilson. Two days later Chambers and Wilson appeared in court with their appointed counsel, where formal arraignment was waived and pleas of guilty were entered. Wilson was thereupon sentenced to the Kansas State Industrial Reformatory for not less than five nor more than ten years and Chambers was sentenced to a like term in the Kansas State Penitentiary.
Later that same day it was discovered that both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Chambers had been erroneously sentenced, and the two men were returned into court where the following proceedings took place:
'The Court: Mr. Chambers, you heard the statement about the penalty provision being for robbery in the first degree?
'Defendant Chambers: Yes, sir.
'Defendant Chambers: No, I haven't.
'The Court: You are hereby sentenced to the Kansas State Penitentiary at Lansing, Kansas, at hard labor, for a period of not less than ten years or more than twenty-one years (T-2-3).'
On January 18, 1966, Chambers commenced proceedings under K.S.A. 60-1507 attacking the validity of the second sentence. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff's motion, at which hearing both Chambers and his appointed counsel, Mr. John Johntz, also of Olathe, were present and where Mr. Chambers testified at length.
After his motion was overruled, the plaintiff appealed and is now represented by new assigned counsel, Mr. Jerry J. Miller, of Olathe. Three points are raised on appeal, each of which will be dealt with in order.
It is first urged that the trial court erred in resentencing the plaintiff in the absence of court appointed counsel. Assuming that such a procedure would have been improper, the trial court expressly found, at the conclusion of the hearing on Chamber's 1507 motion, that counsel was present during the resentencing procedure. This finding is well supported. The transcript of the proceedings states that Wilson and Chambers appeared with counsel at the time they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...P.3d 230 (2008). Finally, appellate courts have a clear duty to set aside void sentences and impose valid ones. See Chambers v. State, 199 Kan. 483, 485, 430 P.2d 241 (1967). We hold that remand for resentencing on Count III is required even though it will not affect the time Smith ultimate......
-
Mann v. State
...the burden of proof.' The foregoing rule was asserted and applied in Brown v. State, 198 Kan. 527, 426 P.2d 49; and Chambers v. State, 199 Kan. 483, 430 P.2d 241. The appellant relies on Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S.Ct. 510, 7 L.Ed.2d 473, for the proposition that a plea ......
-
State v. Fountaine, 44831
...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 decided.) In this respect Kansas follows the decided weight of authority in this country. (21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal......
-
State v. McCarley
...the dissent's holding and generally with its rationale. Our agreement is primarily based upon two cases of this court: Chambers v. State, 199 Kan. 483, 430 P.2d 241 (1967), and Vanwey, 262 Kan. 524, 941 P.2d 365. They establish, among other things, that this court clearly has jurisdiction t......