Holt v. State Of Kan., 101

• Decision Date: 06 May 2010
• Docket Number: 563.,No. 101,101
• Citation: 232 P.3d 848
• Parties: Stanton HOLT, Appellant,v.STATE of Kansas, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

232 P.3d 848

Stanton HOLT, Appellant,v.STATE of Kansas, Appellee.

No. 101,563.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

May 6, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Syllabus by the Court

1. Issues not briefed are deemed waived or abandoned.

2. A summary dismissal of a motion brought under K.S.A. 60-1507 occurs when the district court reviews the motion, records, and files of the case and reaches a decision without conducting a hearing. An appellate court examines summary dismissals of K.S.A. 60-1507 motions using a de novo standard of review. This standard requires an appellate court to determine whether the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.

3. A movant has the burden to prove his or her K.S.A. 60-1507 motion warrants an evidentiary hearing; the movant must make more than conclusory contentions and must state an evidentiary basis in support of the claims or an evidentiary basis must appear in the record. If a movant satisfies that burden, the court is required to grant a hearing, unless the motion is “second” or “successive” and seeks similar relief.

4. Even successive motions under K.S.A. 60-1507 can be considered by a court under exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances are unusual events or intervening changes in the law that prevented the defendant from raising the issue in a preceding 60-1507 motion.

5. The right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional. There is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious.

6. Included in a court's inherent power is the ability to control its docket. As a means of controlling the docket, a court has the inherent power to impose reasonable filing restrictions to curb abusive filing practices.

7. Before court-imposed filing restrictions become effective, the party subject to them is entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard in opposition.

8. Because a district court has substantial discretion in controlling the proceedings before it, court decisions on docket management are reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.

9. The abuse of discretion standard includes a review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.

10. On the facts of this case, the district court was correct in dismissing the defendant's motion brought under K.S.A. 60-1507 but incorrect in barring his future 1507 motions or similar motions for relief in his criminal case.

Gerald E. Wells, of Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.

Steven L. Opat, county attorney, was on the briefs for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by NUSS, J.:

This case arises out of the district court's denial of Stanton Holt's fourth motion for post-conviction relief under K.S.A. 60-1507. The court not only denied the motion without appointment of counsel and hearing but also barred Holt from filing “further K.S.A. 60-1507 or similar motions surrounding this case.” Holt appealed, challenging both the denial of the present motion and the blanket prohibition of future motions. We transferred the case from the Court of Appeals pursuant to K.S.A. 20-3018(c).

The issues on appeal, and our accompanying holdings, are as follows:

1. Did the district court err in dismissing Holt's 60-1507 motion without conducting a hearing? No.

2. Did the district court exceed its power to limit the filing of future motions? Yes.

Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Facts

In 1994, a jury convicted Stanton Holt of over 60 offenses, including two counts of first-degree murder, multiple counts of aggravated burglary, burglary, felony theft, misdemeanor theft, criminal damage to property, and other offenses. He received a controlling sentence of life plus life plus 123 to 355 years.

We affirmed Holt's convictions on direct appeal in State v. Holt, 260 Kan. 33, 917 P.2d 1332 (1996). In essence, Holt committed a series of burglaries and related offenses in Junction City, Kansas, and killed two persons during those events. Following our opinion in Holt's direct appeal, he employed different methods in search of relief. These methods include four pro se 60-1507 motions, a pro se motion to correct illegal sentences, a pro se motion for judgment of default, two habeas corpus motions filed in United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a motion for reconsideration. All of his motions were denied or dismissed, except the Kansas Court of Appeals granted Holt's motion to correct one of his sentences, a result that did not affect his controlling sentence. State v. Holt, 2007 WL 1309615 (Kan.App.2007) (unpublished opinion).

Holt filed all four pro se 60-1507 motions in the Geary County District Court. His first 1507 motion was a 78-page handwritten document alleging that several failures of his appointed trial counsel amounted to ineffective assistance. The district court set the cause for hearing, granted Holt's appointed motion counsel additional time to prepare, and met with both parties. The State filed a motion to dismiss, Holt's counsel did not object, and the court dismissed Holt's motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, noting, “In the opinion of Holt's lawyer and the district court, the 1507 petition failed to raise substantial issues of law or triable issues of fact. On appeal, Holt cites nothing in the record to support his petition.” Holt v. State, No. 81,489, 977 P.2d 294, unpublished opinion filed January 29, 1999.

Holt's second 1507 motion was a 41-page handwritten document raising almost identical issues to his first motion, including ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Holt claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct. Prior to the hearing, Holt's appointed motion counsel sent a letter to the court requesting to withdraw for conflict reasons. Counsel expressed belief that Holt's second 1507 motion did not state a cause of action and simply raised the same argument as his first motion. Holt appeared pro se at the hearing. The district court “note[d] that many of the issues raised by [Holt] were raised by direct appeal and decided adversely to [him]” and dismissed the motion. The Court of Appeals concurred that Holt's second motion raised “a variation of issues Holt previously raised either [in] his direct appeal or in his initial 1507 motion” and affirmed the dismissal. Holt v. State, 2003 WL 22990148, at *3 (Kan.App.2003) (unpublished opinion).

Holt's third 1507 motion was an 18-page handwritten document raising similar issues to both prior motions, including ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed the motion as successive and an abuse of remedy, noting, “Holt has filed three 1507 motions which are nearly identical.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding the third motion successive to the first two. Holt v. State, 2007 WL 1413131, at *4 (Kan.App.2007) (unpublished opinion).

Holt's fourth 1507 motion, which is presently before us for review, is a 15-page typewritten document. He makes broad claims of DNA inconsistencies, false presentation of evidence by the prosecution, trial judge bias, and improper jurors. Once again, he also claims ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied Holt's request for appointed counsel and a hearing. Citing Holt's prior appeals and motions, the court also found this motion successive because “all issues raised by Holt in the present motion have been decided at least five or six times considering the filings in Federal Court. Further, Holt has filed four 1507 motions which are nearly identical.” The court dismissed the motion and barred Holt from filing future motions in his case.

Holt responded to the ruling with a letter to the judge. The court characterized the letter as a motion for reconsideration, which it denied. Holt appealed.

More facts will be added as necessary to the analysis.

Analysis

Issue 1 The district court did not err in dismissing Holt's 1507 motion without a hearing.

Holt's fourth 60-1507 motion raises many issues. On appeal, however, he only challenges the district court's failure to hold a hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, we will only address that issue. See State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 437, 212 P.3d 165 (2009) (Issues not briefed are deemed waived or abandoned.).

Holt argues that because effectiveness of counsel cannot be determined without an evidentiary hearing, the court erred in its summary dismissal. He asks this court to grant a hearing so he can provide evidence of interactions with his attorneys, their conversations, courses of action, and other items that do not appear in the record and reflect on the level of assistance provided.

The State responds that Holt is not entitled to relief because his present motion is successive and identical to the first three 1507 motions.

A summary dismissal occurs when “the district court reviews the motion, records, and files of the case and reaches a decision without conducting a hearing.” Bellamy v. State, 285 Kan. 346, 354, 172 P.3d 10 (2007). We examine summary dismissals of K.S.A. 60-1507 motions using a de novo standard of review. State v. Howard, 287 Kan. 686, 690-91, 198 P.3d 146 (2008). This standard requires “an appellate court to determine whether the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.” Trotter v. State, 288 Kan. 112, 132, 200 P.3d 1236 (2009).

We have held that “ ‘[a] movant has the burden to prove his or her K.S.A. 60-1507 motion warrants an evidentiary hearing; the movant must make more than conclusory contentions and must state an evidentiary basis in support of the claims or an evidentiary basis must appear in the record.’ [Citation omitted.]” Trotter, 288 Kan. at 131-32, 200 P.3d 1236. If a movant satisfies that burden, the court is required to...