Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 45173,45173 |
| Citation | 200 Kan. 708,438 P.2d 96 |
| Parties | Clyde W. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
When a person under indictment or information, and before trial, is found to be insane and unable to comprehend his position and make his defense, has been committed to the custody of the State Security Hospital for safekeeping and treatment, until he shall recover, under the provisions of K.S.A. 62-1531, now K.S.A. 1967 Supp., 62-1531, he is not entitled to challenge the validity of such custody by a motion filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507.
David Mullies, Fort Scott, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
Charles M. Warren, County Atty., argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Atty.Gen., was with him on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal by the petitioner, Clyde W. Johnson, from an order of the district court of Bourbon County denying relief in a proceeding instituted pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507.
Respective counsel have stipulated the pertinent facts and record on appeal in substance as follows.
On October 4, 1965, petitioner was charged with murder in the first degree (K.S.A. 21-401). Petitioner was brought before the county court, counsel was appointed, and a preliminary hearing was set for October 6, 1965. Evidence was offered at the preliminary hearing, witnesses were examined by attorneys for both parties, and at the conclusion thereof petitioner was bound over to the district court.
An information was filed charging petitioner with first degree murder and he appeared for arraignment before the district court on October 6, 1965. The court appointed Douglas G. Hudson, an experienced practicing attorney of Fort Scott, to represent petitioner. Mr. Hudson had previously been appointed by the county court and represented petitioner at his preliminary hearing. Mr. Hudson suggested to the district court that petitioner was insane and incapable of comprehending his position or making his defense and that a commission should be appointed to examine petitioner, as to his sanity and ability to comprehend his position and make his defense, as provided in K.S.A. 62-1531, now K.S.A.1967 Supp. 62-1531. Accordingly, a commission, consisting of three physicians, was appointed and reported to the court on October 12, 1965, that petitioner was insane and unable to comprehend his position and make his defense.
On October 13, 1965, petitioner again appeared before the district court with his attorney. At this proceeding the court accepted and approved the report of the commission and found petitioner insane and incapable of comprehending his position and of making his defense to the charges filed against him.
Pursuant to the provisions of 62-1531, supra, the district court committed petitioner to the State Hospital for the dangerous insane at Larned, Kansas (now State Security Hospital, K.S.A.1967 Supp. 76-2460), for:
Thereafter petitioner was transferred to the State Security Hospital where he remains confined.
On June 26, 1967, petitioner filed a motion, the subject of this appeal, in the district court of Bourbon County. The court considered the motion forthwith and filed its memorandum of findings and order denying relief. The district court found petitioner to be in custody in the State Security Hospital under the order of October 13, 1965; that petitioner has not been returned to the court for trial; and the court has had no report from the superintendent of that institution. The court indicated doubt as to the applicability of 60-1507, supra, but, nevertheless, proceeded to consider the motion on its merits and determined the matters raised therein adversely to petitioner. Thereafter present counsel was appointed and perfected this appeal.
On appeal the state contends the proceedings should be dismissed for the reason petitioner is not in custody under a sentence, following a cinviction, and therefore 60-1507, supra, is not applicable. For the reasons hereafter related, we agree with the state's contention.
K.S.A. 60-1507(a) reads as follows:
'A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court of general jurisdiction claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States, or the constitution or laws of the state of Kansas, or that the court was without jurisdiction to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fischer v. State
...decisions that had developed as a result of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1948), which was the model for K.S.A. 60–1507. See Johnson v. State, 200 Kan. 708, 710, 438 P.2d 96 (1968); Richardson, 194 Kan. at 472–73, 399 P.2d 799. The language was born from the following quote in Hayman: “The existence of......
-
Mundy v. State
...is filed by "[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court of general jurisdiction." (Emphasis added.) See Johnson v. State , 200 Kan. 708, 710, 438 P.2d 96 (1968).Here, Mundy filed her pro se 60-1507 motion on April 11, 2013, while she was still on probation, and, under our caselaw, be......
-
Rawlins v. State, No. 97,260.
...§ 2255 [2000]), Kansas courts have turned for guidance to federal decisions that interpret similar federal statutes. Johnson v. State, 200 Kan. 708, 710, 438 P.2d 96 (1968) (citing State v. Richardson, 194 Kan. 471, 472, 399 P.2d 799 [1965]). The district court here correctly noted the mean......
-
Habeas Corpus in Kansas the Great Writ Affords Postconviction Relief at K.s.a. 60.1507
...[FN1]. Martha Coffman, Habeas Corpus in Kansas: How is the Great Writ Used Today? 64 J.K.B.A. 26 (Jan. 1995). [FN2]. Johnson v. State, 200 Kan. 708, 710, 438 P.2d 96 (1968). [FN3]. J. Richard Foth & Arthur E. Palmer, Post Conviction Motions Under the Kansas Revised Code of Civil Procedure, ......
-
Habeas Corpus in Kansas How Is the Great Writ Used Today
...602 P.2d 99 (1979) ( citing Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U. S. 345, 93 S. Ct. 1571, 36 L. Ed. 2d 294 [1973]). [FN12]. Johnson v. State, 200 Kan. 708, 438 P. 2d 96 (1968). [FN13]. 200 Kan. at 711. [FN14]. In re Habeas Corpus Application of Gilchrist, 238 Kan. 202, 205, 708 P.2d 977 (1985)......