Sullivan v. State, 48124
| Decision Date | 14 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 48124,48124 |
| Citation | 564 P.2d 455,222 Kan. 222 |
| Parties | Jimmy W. SULLIVAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The record is examined in a K.S.A. 60-1507 proceeding and it is found the trial court did not err in failing to grant the petitioner an evidentiary hearing and in failing to permit the petitioner to amend his petition.
James W. Wilson, of Hodge, Wood & Wilson, Wichita, argued the cause, and Ray Hodge, Wichita, was on the brief for appellant.
Stephen E. Robison, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause, and Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen., Vern Miller, Dist. Atty., and Clifford L. Bertholf, Asst. Dist. Atty., were on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal by the petitioner in a proceeding instituted pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507 wherein the trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
On March 22, 1971, an informant told Wichita Detective Jack Watkins that a gambling game at 3213 Locust Street would be held up. Police staked out the area. Shortly before midnight a Cadillac drove by the house and parked about a block away. Three men emerged from the car and walked around the house looking in the windows. They then returned to their car and started to leave. Officers attempted to stop the car, but the driver would not yield. During a short chase the occupants threw from the passenger side of the vehicle two pistols, a sawed-off shotgun, and a towel and pillow case made into a mask. When the car was stopped petitioner and two other men emerged. A search of the occupants and the vehicle uncovered two additional masks and shotgun shells.
The three man were charged with aggravated weapons violation (K.S.A.1971 Supp. 21-4202), unlawful possession of a firearm within five years of a felony conviction (K.S.A.1971 Supp. 21-4204), and conspiracy to commit robbery (K.S.A.1971 Supp. 21-3302). A jury convicted them on both weapons charges. The convictions of petitioner and co-defendant Smith were reversed on appeal because they were tried jointly and it was determined their attorney had a conflict of interest. (State v. Sullivan & Smith, 210 Kan. 842, 504 P.2d 190.)
Petitioner was retried on February 27, 1973. The second jury found him guilty of the weapons violation and of unlawful possession of a firearm. No direct appeal was taken.
On May 23, 1975, petitioner filed this 60-1507 motion alleging his convictions resulted from illegal wiretapping and perjury of which he was not aware until January 6, 1974. The only alleged fact supporting this allegation was that there was 'no confidential informant in this case who gave any information to Det. Jack Watkins, W.P.D., at 10:00 P. M. on March 22, 1971, which indicated that Petitioner was going to pull a job . . ..' No facts were set forth which indicated the nature of the perjury or the illegal wiretap. To support his position petitioner proposed to subpoena all records, files and reports, and all law enforcement officers connected with the case, as well as the confidential informant. There was no indication what the records and files contained or what the testimony of the witnesses would be.
The trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing on the basis that there were no facts alleged or set forth in the motion supporting petitioner's conclusionary allegations. The trial court further noted the same contentions had been presented in federal court in a civil damage action and in a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus, and both actions had been dismissed.
On October 10, 1975, petitioner filed notice of appeal and counsel was appointed. A motion was filed to allow petitioner to file an amended 60-1507 motion. This was denied.
Petitioner contends the trial court erred (1) in denying an evidentiary hearing and (2) in denying his motion to amend his 1507 motion after counsel was appointed.
To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 the movant is required to allege a factual basis in the motion to support his claim for relief. It is well established that the mere conclusionary contention that a petitioner is entitled to relief, for which no factual basis appears...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mundy v. State
...to raise a substantial issue of fact on these matters. See Jackson , 255 Kan. 455, Syl. ¶ 5, 874 P.2d 1138 ; Sullivan v. State , 222 Kan. 222, 223, 564 P.2d 455 (1977) ("It is well established that the mere conclusionary contention that a petitioner is entitled to relief, for which no factu......
-
Coleman v. State, 81-115
...MCA; State v. Ybarra (1974), 22 Ariz.App. 330, 527 P.2d 107; Brudos v. Cupp (1977), 31 Or.App. 25, 569 P.2d 680; Sullivan v. State (1977), 222 Kan. 222, 564 P.2d 455. II. RECUSAL OF THE SENTENCING Coleman next maintains that the district judge should have recused himself as presiding judge ......
-
State v. Trotter
...appeal if the alleged perjury does not establish that the testimony would have entitled the movant to relief. E.g., Sullivan v. State, 222 Kan. 222, 223, 564 P.2d 455 (1977) (petitioner failed to meet burden when "[n]o facts were set forth which indicated the nature of the perjury"); Van Be......
-
Boyle v. McKune, 06-3025.
...background, names of witnesses or other sources of evidence to demonstrate that petitioner is entitled to relief. Sullivan v. State, 222 Kan. 222, 564 P.2d 455, 457 (1977). (citations The diligence question in this case is close, but for purposes of this appeal we can assume he met the Kans......
-
Habeas Corpus in Kansas the Great Writ Affords Postconviction Relief at K.s.a. 60.1507
...197 Kan. 630, 635, 419 P.2d 891 (1966). [FN38]. Goodwin v. State, 195 Kan. 414, Syl. ¶ 8, 407 P.2d 528 (1965). [FN39]. Sullivan v. State, 222 Kan. 222, 223-224, 564 P.2d 455 (1977). [FN40]. Morrow v. State, 219 Kan. 442, 548 P.2d 727 (1976). [FN41]. 219 Kan. at 448. [FN42]. Andrews v. State......