State v. Holt

• Decision Date: 06 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. 105,854.,105,854.
• Citation: 313 P.3d 826
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Stanton HOLT, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

313 P.3d 826

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Stanton HOLT, Appellant.

No. 105,854.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Dec. 6, 2013.

Syllabus by the Court

1. An appellate court reviews a district court's decision on a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion.

2. Statutory interpretation and construction are subject to unlimited appellate review.

3. The fundamental rule to which all other rules are subordinate is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. When language is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to statutory construction. An appellate court merely interprets the language as it appears; it is not free to speculate and cannot read into the statute language not readily found there.

4. The following factors are among those to be considered in determining whetherthe legislature's use of the word “shall” makes a particular provision mandatory or directory: (1) legislative context and history; (2) substantive effect on a party's rights versus merely form or procedural effect; (3) the existence or nonexistence of consequences for noncompliance; and (4) the subject matter of the statutory provision.

5. The 14–day time limit set forth in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 22–3501(1) for motions for new trial based on grounds other than newly discovered evidence is mandatory, not discretionary.

6. A motion for new trial may be granted in the interest of justice, but only if the motion is timely filed.

7. Mislabeled pro se motions for new trial under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 22–3501 may be considered as K.S.A. 60–1507 motions.

8. To avoid the 1–year time limit for filing a K.S.A. 60–1507 motion, the movant must show that an extension of time is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice. “Manifest injustice” has been described as meaning obviously unfair or shocking to the conscience.

9. Issues not presented to the trial court generally will not be considered for the first time on appeal.

Sam S. Kepfield, of Hutchinson, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Steven L. Opat, county attorney, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellee.

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

Stanton Holt directly appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his motion for new trial filed 16 years after his convictions. Because we agree the motion was untimely, we affirm. Our jurisdiction is under K.S.A. 22–3601(b) (convicted of Class A felony; maximum sentence of life imprisonment imposed).

Facts

In 1994, Holt was convicted by a jury of more than 60 offenses, including two counts of first-degree murder that arose out of a series of burglaries and related offenses in Junction City, Kansas. His controlling sentence is life plus 123 to 355 years. On direct appeal, Holt claimed jury instruction errors, insufficient evidence, and double jeopardy violations. This court affirmed in State v. Holt ( Holt I ), 260 Kan. 33, 917 P.2d 1332 (1996).

Holt has pursued many avenues of postconviction relief in Geary County District Court. He has filed four pro se habeas corpus motions under K.S.A. 60–1507; two pro se motions to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22–3504; a letter to the district court, which was treated as a motion for reconsideration; and the motion for new trial under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 22–3501 (republished without amendment as K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 22–3501 and hereafter K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 22–3501), which is the subject of this appeal. He has also filed two habeas corpus motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Each of these motions was denied and affirmed on appeal, except for one motion to correct an illegal sentence that was granted by the Kansas Court of Appeals for one count that did not affect Holt's controlling sentence. See Holt v. State ( Holt III ), No. 89,273, ––– Kan.App.2d ––––, 2003 WL 22990148, at *1 (Kan.App.2003) (unpublished opinion).

Holt filed his first 60–1507 motion in 1997. It raised several issues, including defective and multiplicitous complaint/information, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court appointed counsel and set an evidentiary hearing. Before the hearing, the State filed a motion to dismiss, which Holt's attorney acquiesced to and the district court granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, noting: “In the opinion of Holt's lawyer and the district court, the 60–1507 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 ( Holt II ), No. 81,489, unpublished opinion filed January 29, 1999 (Kan.App.), slip op. at 2, 977 P.2d 294.

Holt's second 60–1507 motion raised issues similar to the first, including defective and multiplicitous complaint/information, biased jury foreman, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Holt claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct, which denied him due process. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the motion, stating that the ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised in Holt's second 60–1507 motion were “a variation of issues Holt previously raised either in his direct appeal or in his initial 1507 motion.” Holt III, 2003 WL 22990148, at *3. It further noted that the juror bias claim could have been raised on direct appeal or in his first 60–1507 motion.

Holt's third 60–1507 motion raised issues similar to both prior 60–1507 motions, including prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After noting that the issues were resolved in Holt's direct appeal and two prior 60–1507 motions, the district court dismissed Holt's third motion as successive and an abuse of remedy. The Court of Appeals affirmed in Holt v. State ( Holt IV ), No. 96,270, ––– Kan.App.2d ––––, 2007 WL 1413131, at *2–4 (Kan.App.2007) (unpublished opinion).

When Holt filed his third 60–1507 motion, he also filed a motion to correct illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22–3504. It also raised issues similar to those contained in his direct appeal and prior 60–1507 motions, including defective and multiplicitous complaint/information, prosecutorial misconduct, biased jury foreman, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court summarily denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Holt ( Holt V ), No. 96,169, ––– Kan.App.2d ––––, 2007 WL 1309615, at *2–4 (Kan.App.2007) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 284 Kan. 948 (2007).

Holt's fourth 60–1507 motion reprised several of his prior claims, including DNA inconsistencies, prosecutorial misconduct, biased jury foreman, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court dismissed this motion as successive. It also barred Holt from filing any more 60–1507 or similar motions. We agreed the motion was successive but also held that the district court exceeded its authority by issuing a blanket prohibitory order. We remanded to that court, authorizing the imposition of reasonable filing restrictions but requiring that Holt receive some level of notice and opportunity to be heard. Holt v. State ( Holt VI ), 290 Kan. 491, 501, 232 P.3d 848 (2010). The record on appeal does not reveal whether any such conditions were ever imposed. But this is the backdrop against which Holt filed his motion for new trial in August 2010.

After the district court summarily dismissed Holt's motion as successive and untimely, he directly appealed to this court.

Analysis

Holt's motion for new trial raises several issues. But on appeal he claims only that the district court abused its discretion in its summary dismissal. Accordingly, this court declines to address the other issues as unpreserved. See State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 709, 245 P.3d 1030 (2011) (issues not briefed are deemed waived or abandoned) (citing State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 437, 212 P.3d 165 [2009] ).

Holt makes three arguments to support his claim of abuse of discretion. First, he contends that his motion for new trial was not untimely because the time-limiting language in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 22–3501(1) is merely directory, not mandatory. In the alternative, Holt next argues that the court should have treated the motion as one for habeas relief under K.S.A. 60–1507. Finally, Holt claims—for the first time on appeal—that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his first 60–1507 motion hearing in 1997. This ineffectiveness in turn allegedly deprived him of any meaningful review of his convictions. The State agrees with the district court, arguing that the motion was untimely and successive and that dismissal was not an abuse of discretion.

Standard of review

This court reviews a district court's decision on a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. State v. Rojas–Marceleno, 295 Kan. 525, 539, 285 P.3d 361 (2012). This standard includes a review to determine if the “judicial action ... is based on an error of law, i.e., if the discretion is guided by an erroneous legal conclusion.” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, Syl. ¶ 3, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1594, 182 L.Ed.2d 205 (2012).

Issue 1: The time limit set out in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 22–3501(1) for motions for new trial based on grounds other than newly discovered evidence is mandatory.

The version of K.S.A. 22–3501(1) in effect at the time of Holt's August 2010 motion allows a court to grant a new trial “if required in the interest of justice.” But it limits the time in which a defendant may file depending on the particular grounds supporting the motion:

“[a] A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made within two years after final judgment .... [b] A motion for a new trial based on any other grounds shall be made within 14 days after the verdict or finding of guilty or within such further time...