Kinnell v. State, 45743
| Decision Date | 09 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45743,45743 |
| Parties | Dale Houston KINNELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
An illegal arrest and detention do not, standing alone, invalidate a subsequent conviction.
Anna I. Shinkle, Fort Scott, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Ernest C. Ballweg, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for appellee.
HARMAN, Commissioner:
Appellant Dale Houston Kinnell was convicted and sentenced for the offenses of kidnaping in the first degree and forcible rape. Upon direct appeal those convictions were affirmed (State v. Kinnell, 197 Kan. 456, 419 P.2d 870).
This appeal is from an order summarily overruling appellant's third motion to vacate those sentences under K.S.A. 60-1507.
Appellant's only ground for relief in this proceeding is the allegation he was initially arrested in Linn county, Kansas, by a state highway patrolman without a warrant and held for a period of five days, first in the Linn county jail and then in the Bourbon county jail, pior to the time an arrest warrant was issued and served upon him. Appellant has not previously raised the contention.
The motion might well be disposed of as an unwarranted successive motion in violation of subsection (c) of K.S.A. 60-1507 as implemented by Rule No. 121(d) of this court (201 Kan. xxxiii). However, treated upon its merits, the issue raised entitles appellant to no relief because he makes no showing of prejudice in any way to his substantial rights by reason of the alleged illegal arrest and detention.
An illegal arrest and detention do not, standing alone, invalidate a subsequent conviction (Baier v. State, 197 Kan. 602, 419 P.2d 865; State v. Dobney, 199 Kan. 449, 429 P.2d 928; Wheeler v. State, 202 Kan. 134, 446 P.2d 777; Moreland v. United States, 347 F.2d 376 (10 Cir., 1965); Davis v. United States, 416 F.2d 960 (10 Cir., 1969); United States ex rel. Ali v. Deegan, 298 F.Supp. 398 (S.D.N.Y., 1969)).
The trial court ruled correctly and its judgment is affirmed.
Approved by the Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Giddings
...the defendant's cause would not be aided. An illegal arrest does not, standing alone, invalidate a subsequent conviction. (Kinnell v. State, 205 Kan. 445, 469 P.2d 348; State v. Addington, supra, 205 Kan. p. 644, 472 P.2d 225; State v. Larkin, 209 Kan. 660, 661, 498 P.2d 37; State v. Woods,......
-
State v. Addington
...is that his arrest on the amended warrant, even if defective or irregular, did not void his subsequent conviction. In Kinnell v. State, 205 Kan. 445, 469 P.2d 348, we 'An illegal arrest and detention od not, standing alone, invalidate a subsequent conviction (Baier v. State, 197 Kan. 602, 4......
-
Greathouse v. State, 46242
...awareness of their consequences. Lack of an arrest warrant, standing alone, does not invalidate a subsequent conviction (Kinnell v. State, 205 Kan. 445, 469 P.2d 348). The uncounseled lineup of which appellant complains occurred in May, 1967-prior to the nonretroactive Wade-Gilbert rule app......
-
Kinnell v. State, 46789
...the trial court and no appeal was taken. A third motion was filed in 1968 and again denied. On appeal it was affirmed in Kinnell v. State, 205 Kan. 445, 469 P.2d 348. The trial court in its memorandum noted the petitioner had filed at least fifteen petitions for writs of habeas corpus and o......