Hall v. Hand
| Decision Date | 03 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 43191,43191 |
| Citation | 190 Kan. 482,375 P.2d 632 |
| Parties | Charles H. HALL, Appellant, v. Tracy A. HAND, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Following the numerous decisions cited in this opinion it is held:
(1) Rule No. 5 of this court (see 186 Kan. XI; G.S.1949, 60-3826, 'Rules of the Supreme Court No. 5') requires that the party seeking appellate review of a trial court's order or judgment shall include in his abstract a specification of the errors of which he complains, separately set forth and numbered.
(2) Where an appellant has made no attempt to conform with the requirements of the rule mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this syllabus and has failed to set forth in his abstract a specification of the errors complained of, in compliance with such rule, appellate review is precluded and his appeal will be dismissed.
Charles H. Hall, pro se.
Park McGee, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause and William M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., on the briefs for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Leavenworth County which, after full and complete hearing, denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus releasing him from the Kansas State Penitentiary, where he is now serving an unexpired sentence of imprisonment imposed, under the provisions of G.S.1949, 21-107a, by the district court of Sedgwick County on the verdict of a jury finding him guilty of the crime of robbery in the first degree.
The facts and circumstances leading up to and resulting in appellant's present incarceration are reported and set forth in State v. Hall, 182 Kan. 331, 320 P.2d 860. So are this court's reasons for the affirmance of the judgment of conviction. Therefore, since nothing is to be gained by repeating what is already in our reports we make, by reference, what is said in the decision of that case with regard to the matters to which we have just referred a part of this opinion, as fully and completely as if they were set forth at length herein.
Moreover, it is neither necessary nor required that we labor the confusing claims advanced and relied on by appellant as grounds for reversal of the trial court's judgment in the instant appeal. From the record presented it clearly appears that, in utter disregard of the requirements of Rule No. 5 (see 186 Kan. XI; G.S.1949, 60-3826 'Rules of the Supreme Court No. 5'), appellant seeks a review of those claims with an abstract of record which contains no specification of errors whatsoever. Under such circumstances the now definitely established rule of this jurisdiction is that where an appellant has made no attempt to comply with the requirements of Rule No. 5 of this court, appellate review is precluded and his appeal must be dismissed.
We are neither inclined nor disposed to again labor the reasons responsible for the court's enunciation and application of the rule just mentioned. It suffices to say the reasons have been considered and discussed, and the rule applied, under divers conditions and circumstances, in many decisions, both criminal and civil, to which we adhere. See, e. g., Messmore v. Hand, 185 Kan. 774, 775, 347 P.2d 402; Blevins v. Daugherty, 187 Kan. 257, 259, 356 P.2d 852; State v. Armstrong, 188 Kan. 567, 569, 570, 363 P.2d 520; Lemon v. Pauls, 189 Kan. 314, 369 P.2d 355, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilchrist, Application of
...of counsel claim. We have held that a petition for habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal in a criminal case. Hall v. Hand, 190 Kan. 482, 484, 375 P.2d 632 (1962); State v. Shores, 187 Kan. 492, 357 P.2d 798 (1960). While we have found no Kansas authority applying this rule to the fai......
- State v. Schaefer