Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507

A movant may not relitigate in a section 60-1507 proceeding a speedy-trial issue already resolved on direct appeal.

State v. James · filed 2024-08-02

The speedy trial issue has been resolved to James' disadvantage, and he may not relitigate it in a K.S.A. 60-1507 proceeding.

Section 60-1507 permits a prosecutorial misconduct claim omitted from direct appeal only if the misconduct affected constitutional rights and exceptional circumstances excuse the omission.

Tubbs v. State · filed 2025-09-12

Prosecutorial misconduct must be raised in a direct appeal and cannot be collaterally attacked through a 60-1507 motion "unless it affected constitutional rights and there is a showing of exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal on that issue" as explained above.

A 60-1507 motion cannot raise an issue that should have been raised on direct appeal unless exceptional circumstances excuse the failure to raise it earlier.

Hunter v. State · filed 2025-09-26

We add that a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion cannot serve as a vehicle to raise an issue that should have been raised on direct appeal unless the movant shows exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to raise it earlier.

Issues raised in a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion are waived and abandoned if they are not briefed on appeal.

McKinney v. State · filed 2018-12-21

Any issues raised in the K.S.A. 60-1507 motion but not briefed on appeal are deemed waived and abandoned.

A 60-1507 court may consider an issue that could have been raised on direct appeal when it implicates constitutional rights and exceptional circumstances excuse the omission.

Partridge v. State · filed 2022-04-22

An exception to this general rule authorizes consideration of an issue that might have been raised in a direct appeal if the issue implicates constitutional rights and exceptional circumstances excuse the failure to raise the issue on direct appeal. ... A successful claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, therefore, establishes the requisite exceptional circumstances to permit appellate consideration of the issue. ... Thus, we will proceed to consider Partridge's claims.

A claim omitted from a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion will not be reviewed for the first time on appeal.

Samuels v. State · filed 2022-09-09

Samuels did not raise this issue in his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion so there are no findings from the district court to review. We will not review this claim for the first time on appeal.

A K.S.A. 60-1507 movant seeking to appeal after the deadline must establish that an exception allowing an untimely appeal applies.

Hall v. State · filed 2026-02-06

Hall's unwillingness to communicate or participate in legal proceedings reflects he failed to meet his burden to show he should be allowed to proceed under an Albright exception to filing an untimely notice of appeal after his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion was denied.

A specific sworn allegation of facts outside the record that, if true, would support relief can require a preliminary hearing when the motion, files, and records do not conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.

Simmons v. State · filed 2025-04-25(b)

Most importantly, in Simmons' motion and affidavit, he sets out a specific allegation, under oath, claiming facts not appearing in the original record which if true, would support a claim for relief. On this basis, he provides a sufficient claim on which to appoint him counsel to hold a preliminary hearing to establish his basis of knowledge of the alleged circumstances involving Detective Karlinger and Powel. Without doing so, we cannot say the motions, files, and records of this case conclusively show Simmons is entitled to no relief, because this allegation he makes under oath, and with precise information, suggests otherwise.

A § 60-1507 motion may be denied without the movant’s presence or appointed counsel when the files and records conclusively show no entitlement to relief and the motion raises no triable fact or substantial legal question.

State v. Talbert · filed 1965-06-12

The petitioner’s contention that the trial court did not properly consider his motion to vacate and set aside the sentence is not borne out by the record. ... The petitioner was notified as to the hearing date, and the court, pursuant to Rule No. 121 (/) (found in 193 Kan., Advance Sheet No. 4, p. iii) considered the files and the records of the case which it found conclusively disclosed that the movant was entitled to no relief—that the petitioner raised no triable issues of fact or substantial questions of law which would require his presence in the court at the time of the hearing on the motion or require the appointment of counsel to represent him. ... Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the record discloses the trial court carefully considered the entire record, including the transcript of the arraignment, and gave due consideration to each point raised by the petitioner. Nothing was presented to the trial court which would show that the judgment should be set aside.

When the sentencing court’s files and records conclusively show that a petitioner is not entitled to relief, § 60-1507 does not require a plenary hearing, appointed counsel, or the petitioner’s presence.

Blacksmith v. State · filed 1965-11-06

Where a proceeding is brought under the provisions of K. S. A. 60-1507 and the files and records of the case in the sentencing court conclusively show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, it is not required that a formal plenary hearing be had, or that counsel be appointed for the petitioner, or that the petitioner be ... produced for a hearing.

Section 60-1507 permits a district court to deny an evidentiary hearing, appointed counsel, and the prisoner’s presence when the motion presents no substantial claim and the files and records conclusively show no entitlement to relief.

McCall v. State · filed 1966-03-05

The statute (K. S. A. 60-1507) does not strip the district court of discretion to ascertain whether a claim for relief is substantial before granting a full evidentiary hearing. Under the circumstances which attend, the district court was not required to conduct a formal plenary hearing, or to appoint counsel, or have the petitioner present.

Section 60-1507 does not require a hearing, appointed counsel, or the movant’s presence when the record conclusively shows no entitlement to relief and the motion raises no substantial factual or legal issue.

Kelly v. State · filed 1966-03-05

The court further found that no substantial issues of fact as to events in which petitioner participated or substantial questions of law were raised by the allegations of the petition. We are convinced, from our search of the record, that the findings of the trial court were fully justified. Under such circumstances the sentencing court is not required to grant a formal plenary hearing, or to appoint counsel, or to have the movant present.

When a § 60-1507 motion alerts the district court that an indigent prisoner attempted a criminal appeal without counsel, the court should treat the proceeding as a request for appointment of appellate counsel.

Porter v. State · filed 1966-05-07

“It is suggested that where the motion filed pursuant to Sec. 60-1507 apprises the District Court that he is an indigent person and no attorney was appointed to represent him in perfecting and presenting his criminal appeal, the District Court treat such proceeding as movant’s affidavit for appointment of counsel pursuant to Rule No. 56 (191 Kan. Prefatory Rule No. 1 (/) xn), and enter an order appointing counsel to represent the movant on appeal pursuant to said rule, and advise counsel to file a motion in the Supreme Court to recall the mandate and reinstate the appeal for further proceedings.” ... In view of what has been said, the district court when apprised of petitioner’s attempt to appeal without the aid of counsel should have treated the proceedings to vacate as movant’s affidavit for appointment of counsel and proceeded accordingly.

When the sentencing court’s files and records conclusively show that a movant is not entitled to relief under § 60-1507, the court need not require the movant’s presence, appoint counsel, or hold a formal plenary hearing.

Peterson v. State · filed 1967-01-21

Where the files and records of the case in the sentencing court conclusively show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in a proceeding under K. S. A. 60-1507 the petitioner’s presence, appointment of counsel or a formal plenary hearing are not required.

Proceedings under § 60-1507 are part of the underlying criminal case for purposes of appointing and compensating counsel for an indigent prisoner.

Stahl v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 1967-04-08

Although K. S. A. 60-1507 is included in our Civil Code, and the collateral attack upon a criminal judgment authorized therein may be denominated a civil proceeding, we believe that the collateral proceeding is, functionally, a part of the total review process, even though delayed, and should be treated as such in regard both to the right to counsel and to counsel’s right to be paid.

Section 60-1507 permits denial of postconviction relief without the petitioner’s presence or appointed counsel when the files and records conclusively show no entitlement to relief.

Robertson v. State · filed 1967-04-08

It follows, therefore, the trial court was warranted in concluding the files and records conclusively showed that petitioner was not entitled to relief and that his presence and the appointment of counsel were unnecessary.

Section 60-1507(b) permits denial without a hearing or appointed counsel when the files and record conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief.

Alcorn v. State · filed 1967-05-13(b)

As the files and the record conclusively show that the prisoner was entitled to no relief there was no occasion for a hearing or the appointment of an attorney.

Section 60-1507 does not require the movant’s presence, appointed counsel, or a formal evidentiary hearing when the record establishes that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.

Patterson v. State · filed 1967-04-08

Under the record the presence of petitioner, appointment of counsel, and a formal evidentiary hearing were not required (State v. Burnett, 194 Kan. 645, 400 P. 2d 971; Chappell v. State, 197 Kan. 407, 409, 416 P. 2d 786; Van Dusen v. State, 197 Kan. 718, 726, 727, 421 P. 2d 197).

In a proceeding under Section 60-1507, the sentencing court may deny an evidentiary hearing and the prisoner’s presence when the record shows the claim is not substantial.

Webb v. State · filed 1965-12-11

It must be conceded that Rule No. 121 (h) of the Supreme Court (194 Kan. xxvm) is to be applied in proceedings conducted pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1507. This rule relates to the presence of the prisoner and provides, in substance, that he should be produced at the hearing on a motion attacking a sentence where there are substantial issues of fact as to events in which he participated. The sentencing court, however, is given discretion to ascertain whether the claim is substantial before granting a full evidentiary hearing and requiring the prisoner to be present. ... For the reasons hereafter assigned, we think the trial court was well within its power of discretion when it determined the petitioners claim was not substantial and found that it was unnecessary to have the petitioner present or grant an evidentiary hearing.

Section 60-1507 permits denial without an evidentiary hearing or the movant’s presence when the petition and case records conclusively show no entitlement to relief.

Fields v. State · filed 1965-12-11

After a careful examination of the record we are compelled to conclude the allegations of the petition and the files and records of the original prosecution conclusively show that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the district court properly overruled the petition without an evidentiary hearing in the presence of the petitioner.

Section 60-1507 requires a petitioner to be present at a full evidentiary hearing when the sentencing court finds a substantial factual issue concerning events in which the petitioner participated.

Brown v. State · filed 1966-01-22

Where the sentencing court in the exercise of its power of discretion has determined that it was necessary to have an evidentiary hearing because the petitioner's claim was substantial, we hold that it was bound to give the petitioner a full evidentiary hearing and require his presence, because it involved a substantial issue of fact as to events in which he participated.

When the case files and records conclusively refute a prisoner’s claim, § 60-1507 permits the court to decide the motion without the prisoner’s presence or appointed counsel at the hearing.

McFarland v. State · filed 1966-03-05

Where the record and files in the criminal proceeding clearly refute the contention of -the appellant, as disclosed above, it is unnecessary to have the appellant before the trial court when the hearing is conducted, or that he be represented by counsel at such hearing.

A prisoner seeking relief under § 60-1507 need not personally attend the hearing when the issues raised do not require the prisoner’s presence.

Washington v. State · filed 1966-11-05

He later filed a motion under the provisions of K. S. A. 60-1507 to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentence. ... Under the issues and matters raised by petitioner’s motion to vacate and set aside there was no occasion for his personal presence at the hearing.

Section 60-1507 does not require a movant to be present at a hearing when the trial court record clearly refutes the movant’s uncorroborated statements.

Craig v. State · filed 1967-01-21

When the record and files in the trial court clearly refute the uncorroborated statements of the person convicted of crime it is unnecessary to have the person present before the court when a hearing is conducted on the motion to vacate sentence.

Section 60-1507(b) calls for a prompt hearing on claims of illegal restraint as part of a swift postconviction remedy.

Smith v. State of Kansas · filed 1966-02-07(b)

This means, of course, that the statute must be construed to afford a “swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or confinement”. ... The case is accordingly reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to take such steps as it deems necessary to secure petitioner’s right to a prompt hearing on his claim of unconstitutional restraint.

When a movant receives a full evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507, the State need not file an answer or other responsive pleading to contest the motion or the movant’s evidence.

Tipton v. State · filed 1965-05-15

In the next place — as we construe the provisions of 60-1507 — when a full and complete evidentiary hearing is afforded a plaintiff under its terms it is neither necessary nor required that the defendant answer or otherwise plead to the plaintiff’s motion in order to refute the allegations of the motion or the evidence offered by the plaintiff in support thereof.

Section 60-1507 permits denial without appointed counsel or an evidentiary hearing when the files and records conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

Burnett v. State · filed 1967-07-12

There was no denial of due process of law in the sentencing procedure; therefore the trial court properly concluded the files and records conclusively showed appellant was not entitled to relief and that the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing were unnecessary.

Section 60-1507 does not require appointed counsel or an evidentiary hearing when the motion presents no disputed facts and the record conclusively shows no entitlement to relief.

Bush v. State · filed 1969-05-17

Under the circumstances the appointment of counsel would have served no useful purpose. Petitioner s motion for relief presented no disputed facts, and there was nothing about the case to cause the court to hold an evidentiary hearing.

Section 60-1507(h) requires notice only when an evidentiary hearing is granted; a motion may be decided without notice if the motion, files, and records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief.

Carter v. State · filed 1967-06-10(h)

Regardless of the substance and sufficiency of such notice K. S. A. 60-1507 (h) provides when notice is required. Notice is required only when an evidentiary hearing is granted. If the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief the motion may be considered and determined in a summary way without notice to the movant.

A § 60-1507 motion requires neither appointed counsel nor a plenary hearing when it presents no substantial question of law or triable issue of fact.

Robertson v. State · filed 1970-12-12

Petitioner’s final contention that he was entitled to a plenary hearing and counsel on his 1507 motion is without merit. His motion failed to present a substantial question of law or a triable issue of fact and in such case the court was not required to appoint counsel to assist petitioner or to hold a plenary hearing.

Section 60-1507 does not require an evidentiary hearing or appointment of counsel when the motion raises no substantial issue of fact or question of law.

Ames v. State · filed 1973-06-09

There was no substantial issue of fact or question of law raised by petitioner’s motion; therefore an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of counsel were not required.

A court may deny a Section 60-1507 motion without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records show no substantial legal issue or triable factual issue and establish that the movant is entitled to no relief.

State v. Komarek · filed 1973-12-08

Finally, where the motion, files and records before the district court establish there is no substantial issue of law or triable issue of fact and that a movant under K. S. A. 60-1507 is entitled to no relief, it is not error to deny the motion without appointment of counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing.

In a § 60-1507 proceeding, a factually supported claim of ineffective trial counsel identifying witnesses may require an evidentiary hearing and appointed counsel.

Oswald v. State · filed 1974-03-02

The issue of the adequacy of trial counsel when raised in a 60-1507 proceeding, if supported by factual allegations and the designation of witnesses, may pose a substantial question necessitating an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of counsel.

Section 60-1507 requires a substantial issue of fact or law before an indigent movant is entitled to appointed counsel or an evidentiary hearing.

Collins v. State · filed 1974-07-17

K. S. A. 60-1507 requires a finding of substantial issue of fact or law raised by the motion before counsel will be appointed for an indigent or an evidentiary healing held.

A court need not appoint counsel or hold an evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion that raises no substantial issue of fact or law.

Foy v. State · filed 1993-01-08

It is well established that when no substantial issue of fact or question of law is raised by a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, the trial court is not required to appoint counsel or hold an evidentiary hearing.

Section 60-1507(b) permits a district court to decide a postconviction motion without producing the prisoner at a hearing and gives the court discretion over whether physical presence is necessary.

Fischer v. State · filed 2013-03-01(b)

Both the statute and the rule provide discretion for the district court to decide how a prisoner will be produced for a hearing in those instances requiring it. There is no bright-line rule as suggested by the majority panel mandating physical presence in all instances. The statute expressly states that a court may decide a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion “without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing.” K.S.A. 60-1507(b).

A court must appoint counsel for a § 60-1507 movant before a preliminary hearing on potentially substantial issues in the motion.

Jones v. State · filed 2016-12-30

Caselaw consistently requires that a district court appoint counsel for a K.S.A. 60- 1507 movant before conducting a preliminary hearing to determine whether potentially substantial issues in the motion are, in fact, substantial.

Reviewing the State’s written response to a 60-1507 motion, even when the court requested it, does not itself require appointment of counsel for the movant.

Breedlove v. State · filed 2019-07-12(b)

But simply reviewing the State's response to the motion, even when requested by the district court, is not the equivalent of an actual hearing and does not give rise to a right to counsel.

When a court appoints counsel for a Section 60-1507 movant, counsel cannot agree to denial of the motion without the client's consent.

Kling v. State · filed 2020-01-31

Where, as here, the district court has appointed a lawyer to represent an inmate pursuing habeas corpus relief under K.S.A. 60-1507, that lawyer cannot agree to a denial of the motion without the consent of his or her client. See Campbell v. State, 34 Kan. App. 2d 8, 13, 114 P.3d 162 (2005) (appointed lawyer's advocacy against client's 60-1507 motion falls below "'the most minimal of standards'" for representation in those proceedings); Stanton v. State, No. 97,568, 2008 WL 1847667, at *2 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion) (without consent of client to drop 60-1507 motion, lawyer must either withdraw as appointed counsel or "argue[] in support of the merits of the motion").

A movant has no right to appointed counsel when the motion, files, and records conclusively show no entitlement to relief and the court summarily denies the § 60-1507 motion.

Brooks v. State · filed 2022-05-06

When a district court determines the motion, files, and records conclusively show a movant is entitled to no relief and summarily denies the K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, there is no statutory duty to appoint counsel.

Section 60-1507 procedures apply to motions to withdraw a plea and require appointment of counsel when an evidentiary hearing is required.

State v. Antrim · filed 2016-06-24

Because an evidentiary hearing is required, the district court should appoint counsel to represent Antrim before that hearing. See Williams, 303 Kan. at 607 (applying procedures under K.S.A. 60-1507 to motions to withdraw plea under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3210); Fischer v. State, 296 Kan. 808, 820-21, 295 P.3d 560 (2013) (requiring appointment of counsel in habeas proceeding under K.S.A. 60-1507 when evidentiary hearing is required).

A summary denial of a § 60-1507 motion receives de novo appellate review to determine whether the motion and record conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Beard v. State · filed 2018-02-16

When the district court summarily denies a 60-1507 motion, an appellate court conducts de novo review to determine whether the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to relief.

After a hearing on a § 60-1507 motion, appellate courts review the district court’s factual findings for substantial competent evidence and its legal conclusions de novo.

Jackson v. State · filed 2017-03-24

After a full evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, the district court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all issues presented. Supreme Court Rule 183(j) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 222). Appellate courts then review the district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence and are sufficient to support the court's conclusions of law. Appellate review of the district court's ultimate conclusions of law is de novo.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a 60-1507 motion, an appellate court accepts factual findings supported by substantial competent evidence and reviews determinative legal issues without deference.

Farmer v. State · filed 2017-08-04

When reviewing the denial of a 60-1507 motion after a full evidentiary hearing, an appellate court accepts the district court's findings of fact to the extent they are supported with substantial competent evidence. The appellate court exercises unlimited review of the determinative legal issues in light of those factual findings.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a 60-1507 motion, an appellate court reviews supported factual findings deferentially and determinative legal issues without deference.

Rippetoe v. State · filed 2017-08-25

When reviewing the denial of a 60-1507 motion after a full evidentiary hearing, an appellate court accepts the district court's findings of fact to the extent they are supported with substantial competent evidence. The appellate court exercises unlimited review of the determinative legal issues in light of those factual findings.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion, an appellate court accepts factual findings supported by substantial competent evidence and reviews determinative legal issues without deference.

Adkins v. State · filed 2017-08-25

When reviewing the denial of a 60-1507 motion after a full evidentiary hearing, an appellate court accepts the district court's findings of fact to the extent they are supported with substantial competent evidence. The appellate court exercises unlimited review of the determinative legal issues in light of those factual findings.

On appeal from the denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 ineffective-assistance claim, factual findings are reviewed for substantial competent evidence and legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.

Zurn v. State · filed 2017-12-22

In reviewing a claim that the district court erred in denying a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel brought under K.S.A. 60-1507, this court uses a two-step standard of review. First, the court considers the district court's factual findings and determines whether the findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. Second, the court reviews the district court's legal conclusion de novo.

A denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion based on the motions, files, and records after a preliminary hearing is reviewed de novo.

Crothers v. State · filed 2018-02-02

Where, as here, the district court denies a 60-1507 motion based only on the motions, files, and records after a preliminary hearing, the appellate court is in just as good a position as the district court to consider the merits. Therefore, our standard of review is de novo.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 claim, appellate courts review factual findings for substantial competent evidence and legal conclusions de novo.

Galleher v. State · filed 2018-11-30

When such a claim is brought under K.S.A. 60-1507 and the district court conducts a full evidentiary hearing on the claim, we review the district court's factual findings for substantial competent evidence and determine whether the court's factual findings support its conclusions of law. The district court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, an appellate court reviews factual findings for substantial competent evidence and legal conclusions de novo.

Bell v. State · filed 2019-05-03

An appellate court exercises a mixed standard of review when reviewing an appeal from the district court's denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion after a full evidentiary hearing. We review the district court's findings of fact to determine whether the findings are supported by substantial competent evidence and are sufficient to support the court's conclusions of law. Appellate review of the district court's ultimate conclusions of law is de novo.

A prisoner who intentionally abandoned a direct appeal cannot establish exceptional circumstances for relief under § 60-1507 from the resulting failure to perfect that appeal.

Weser v. State · filed 1978-06-10

The trial court’s dismissal of an appeal taken by a defendant in a criminal action who intentionally abandons appellate review of his constitutional claim is not an exceptional circumstance excusing a direct appeal. ... Thus, under the facts and circumstances appearing in this record the trial court properly dismissed the petitioner’s direct appeal on August 30, 1974, and his 60-1507 motion on November 15, 1976.

A movant relying on a change in law to excuse failure to raise an instruction issue in an earlier proceeding under § 60-1507 must show an actual change that is both an exceptional circumstance and a constitutional ground for vacating the sentence.

Kirtdoll v. State · filed 1984-09-13

The petitioner, Charles Kirtdoll, appeals from the denial of his motion for relief under K.S.A. 60-1507. ... Petitioner’s burden now is to show a change in the law which is both an exceptional circumstance and a constitutional ground for vacating his sentence. ... There being no change in the law, it follows that there are no exceptional circumstances for excusing petitioner’s failure to raise the instruction issue in an earlier proceeding.

Section 60-1507 permits a prisoner to challenge an erroneous sentence caused by charging the general offense instead of the controlling specific offense without showing exceptional circumstances for not raising the issue on direct appeal.

Carmichael v. State · filed 1994-04-15

Here, Carmichael is challenging the State’s failure to charge him with the specific offense, which ultimately resulted in the imposition of an erroneous sentence. Hence, he need not show exceptional circumstances in order to raise the issue in a 60-1507 motion.

A 60-1507 court may reach a constitutional trial error omitted on direct appeal when a significant intervening change in law supplies exceptional circumstances, though the new rule remains subject to retroactivity limits.

Alires v. State · filed 1995-11-22

“[A] proceeding under K.S.A. 60-1507 cannot ordinarily be used as a substitute for direct appeal involving mere trial errors or as a substitute for a second appeal. Mere trial errors are to be corrected by direct appeal, but trial errors affecting constitutional rights may be raised even though the error could have been raised on appeal, provided there were exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal.” ... We agree that Powers extends Batson to such a significant degree that under the facts of this case, it ought to be considered under the exceptional circumstances exception. ... Given the series of “what if’s” noted above, we will address the merits of the issue raised by Alires despite the fact that he did not raise the issue on direct appeal.

A movant may raise a claim for the first time on appeal from denial of a § 60-1507 motion when ineffective assistance of appellate counsel creates exceptional circumstances and can be resolved as a matter of law from the appellate record.

Trotter v. State · filed 2009-01-30

Hence, we conclude that the failure of Trotter’s counsel on direct appeal to raise the multiplicity argument, an argument based upon authorities available to counsel at the time of the direct appeal and related to arguments that appellate counsel or his colleagues had made on behalf of other defendants, creates an exceptional circumstance allowing Trotter to raise the issue for the first time on appeal from the denial of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

A movant who could have raised constitutional trial errors on direct appeal must allege exceptional circumstances to raise them in a § 60-1507 motion.

Tappendick v. State · filed 2016-03-11

Because of this, Tappendick must allege exceptional circumstances excusing his failure to include these issues in his direct appeal, even if his issues are trial errors which affect constitutional rights.

A movant relying on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as an exceptional circumstance excusing the failure to raise a claim on direct appeal must assert it in the district court 60-1507 motion.

Hogan v. State · filed 2016-07-29

When raising ineffective assistance of counsel as an exceptional circumstance that prevented a movant from bringing a claim in a direct appeal, such assertion must be made in a 60-1507 motion before the district court.

Section 60-1507 permits review of a claim omitted from direct appeal when constitutional rights are implicated and exceptional circumstances excuse the omission; ineffective appellate counsel can supply those circumstances.

Wilmer v. State · filed 2022-11-04

Generally, a habeas corpus proceeding may not replace a direct appeal to correct mere trial errors. An exception exists, however, when constitutional rights are implicated, and exceptional circumstances excuse the failure to raise the issue on direct appeal.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion, appellate courts review factual findings for substantial competent evidence and legal conclusions de novo.

Lopez v. State · filed 2018-11-16

After a full evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, the district court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all issues presented. Supreme Court Rule 183(j) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 223). An appellate court reviews the court's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence and are sufficient to support the court's conclusions of law. Appellate review of the district court's ultimate conclusions of law is de novo.

After denial of a 60-1507 motion following a full evidentiary hearing, appellate courts review factual findings for substantial competent evidence and whether those findings support the legal conclusions.

Levy v. State · filed 2019-10-04

When a district court denies a 60-1507 motion after a full evidentiary hearing, this court reviews the factual findings for substantial competent evidence and reviews whether those factual findings sufficiently support the district court's legal conclusions.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, appellate courts accept factual findings supported by substantial competent evidence and review determinative legal issues without deference.

Sola-Morales v. State · filed 2019-11-15

When we review the denial of a 60-1507 motion after a full evidentiary hearing, we accept the district court's findings of fact to the extent they are supported with substantial competent evidence. But we exercise unlimited review of the determinative legal issues.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, appellate courts review factual findings for substantial competent evidence and legal conclusions de novo.

Vanderpool v. State · filed 2020-02-07

When the trial court denies a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion after a full evidentiary hearing, an appellate court uses a bifurcated standard of review. We review the trial court's factual findings for substantial competent evidence. But we review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion, appellate courts review the district court’s factual findings for substantial competent evidence.

Spangler v. State · filed 2020-03-13

When, as here, a district court has conducted a full evidentiary hearing to consider a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, we review the factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence and are sufficient to support the district court's legal conclusions.

When a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion seeks a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, denial of that request is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Neer v. State · filed 2020-06-12

But when the prior panel remanded this case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing, it framed the issue as a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We review an order denying a request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence for abuse of discretion. See Moncla v. State, 285 Kan. 826, 839-40, 176 P.3d 954 (2008) (applying abuse of discretion standard of review when claim of newly discovered evidence is raised in context of K.S.A. 60-1507 proceeding). Neer's case was remanded to the district court on the sole issue of whether Neer should be granted a new trial based on E.T.'s recantation. Neer, 2015 WL 1310815, at *7. Accordingly, we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review.

A court reviewing a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion after an evidentiary hearing reviews conclusions of law and the decision to grant or deny the motion without deference.

Cabrera-Sanchez v. State · filed 2020-06-26

However, we exercise unlimited review over the district court's conclusions of law and its decision to grant or deny the K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

A denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion after an evidentiary hearing receives mixed appellate review.

Graf v. State · filed 2020-10-09

When a district court denies a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion after holding an evidentiary hearing—as the district court has now done in this case—we apply a mixed standard of review.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion, appellate courts review factual findings for substantial competent evidence and legal conclusions de novo.

Amaro v. State · filed 2020-11-20

An appellate court reviews the court's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence and are sufficient to support the court's conclusions of law. Appellate review of the district court's ultimate conclusions of law is de novo.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion, appellate courts review factual findings for substantial competent evidence and legal conclusions de novo.

Garcia v. State · filed 2020-12-04

Here, the district court denied Garcia's 60-1507 motion after a full evidentiary hearing. After such a hearing, the district court must issue "findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented." Supreme Court Rule 183(j) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 223). We review the district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence and are sufficient to support the district court's conclusions of law. Our review of the district court's ultimate conclusions of law is de novo.

Section 60-1507 relief may be denied when the petitioner receives an out-of-time appeal from the original conviction and that conviction is affirmed on appeal.

Troy v. State · filed 1974-07-17

This is an appeal from an order denying petitioner’s motion to set aside his sentence and conviction pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1507, and authorizing petitioner to take an out-of-time appeal from his original conviction. The out-of-time appeal was perfected and is fully considered by this court in State v. Troy, 215 Kan. 369, 524 P. 2d 1121, this day affirmed on appeal. The order of the trial court in permitting the petitioner to take the out-of-time appeal and denying the post-conviction motion to set aside his sentence and conviction was proper and is affirmed in accordance with what is said in Brizendine v. State, 210 Kan. 241, 499 P. 2d 525, and later confirmed in Roy v. State, 213 Kan. 30, 35, 514 P. 2d 832.

A written waiver of appeal can defeat a § 60-1507 motion seeking an appeal out of time when it disproves the motion’s allegations.

State v. Ortiz · filed 1982-02-27

The written waiver of appeal fully disproves the allegations made in the 60-1507 motion filed over a year later.

A district court need not advise a § 60-1507 movant of the right to appeal its decision on the motion.

Guillory v. State · filed 2007-11-02

In contrast, there is no statutory requirement that the district court advise a K.S.A. 60-1507 movant of the right to appeal the decision on his or her motion.

A denial of permission to file an untimely petition for review does not bar a later § 60-1507 claim based on counsel’s late filing or deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.

Penn v. State · filed 2008-01-11

Therefore, our Supreme Court’s denial of the motion does not bar relitigation of the issues raised in a later 60-1507 motion or prevent the trial court from having jurisdiction over the same.

The Ortiz exceptions allowing late direct criminal appeals do not apply to untimely appeals from denials of K.S.A. 60-1507 motions.

Hernandez v. State · filed 2018-03-09

Unfortunately for Hernandez, the Ortiz exceptions are inapplicable where a defendant files an untimely appeal from the denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

The Ortiz exceptions for untimely direct criminal appeals do not apply to an untimely appeal from the denial of a Section 60-1507 motion.

Williams v. State · filed 2018-12-07

But the district court properly rejected Williams' argument because the Ortiz exceptions do not apply where a defendant files an untimely appeal from the denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

An untimely appeal from the denial of a Section 60-1507 motion cannot be saved by the Ortiz exceptions for late direct criminal appeals.

State v. Brown · filed 2019-02-01

But the Ortiz exceptions do not apply where a defendant files an untimely appeal from the denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

A movant seeking an out-of-time appeal from the denial of a § 60-1507 motion because appointed counsel failed to perfect a timely appeal must obtain a finding that counsel provided ineffective assistance.

Vanderpool v. State · filed 2019-09-13

Indeed, for this court to have jurisdiction over Vanderpool's untimely K.S.A. 60-1507 appeal, the trial court must make a finding that Hamilton provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not perfecting a timely appeal.

A section 60-1507 movant may appeal a denial after the 30-day deadline if appointed counsel’s ineffective assistance deprived the movant of a timely appeal.

Rivera v. State · filed 2020-02-14

The failure to file a timely notice of appeal generally requires dismissal of the appeal. However, a movant whose K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is denied may file a notice of appeal outside the 30-day period if he or she received ineffective assistance of counsel which deprived him or her of the opportunity to timely appeal the denial of the 60-1507 motion.

Section 60-1507 cannot be used to raise errors that could have been raised on direct appeal or to obtain a second appeal of points already considered.

Martin v. State · filed 1974-07-17

Our rule is that K. S. A. 60-1507 may not be used for postconviction relief from errors which could have been raised on direct appeal or to gain a second appeal of previously considered points.

Section 60-1507 ordinarily does not permit a nonconstitutional claim that could have been raised on direct appeal.

State v. Swisher · filed 2006-04-28

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is not typically an acceptable vehicle for a nonconstitutional claim of error that could have been addressed on direct appeal.

A prosecutorial misconduct claim may be raised under § 60-1507 only if it affected a constitutional right and exceptional circumstances excuse the failure to raise it on direct appeal.

Bledsoe v. State · filed 2007-02-02

It is not properly raised in a collateral proceeding under K.S.A. 60-1507 unless it affected a constitutional right and there is a showing of exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal on that issue.

A § 60-1507 movant must show exceptional circumstances to raise an issue omitted at trial and on direct appeal.

Wilkins v. State · filed 2008-08-22

Wilkins’ first obstacle to obtaining relief on this issue is procedural. He is required to show exceptional circumstances excusing his failure to raise it at trial or on direct appeal.

Section 60-1507 permits a fact-dependent ineffective-assistance claim even when the defendant could have raised the issue on direct appeal; res judicata does not bar the claim on that basis.

Jones v. State · filed 2015-12-18

Although we agree that Jones could have presented this argument on direct appeal, he was not required to do so. ... Here, there was a factual issue regarding whether Jones voluntarily and knowingly waived his right to conflict-free counsel at the hearing on the motion to withdraw plea, which required consideration of trial counsel's testimony as well as his case file. ... Thus, we do not find Jones' argument to be barred by res judicata.

A movant may raise a Brady claim in a section 60-1507 motion after direct appeal if the violation was discovered later, but must identify when it was discovered to establish exceptional circumstances for not raising it on direct appeal.

Hopson v. State · filed 2016-02-05

If Hopson truly discovered a Brady violation after his direct appeal, such a violation could form the basis for his claim for relief. But because Hopson does not inform us as to when he discovered the alleged Brady violation, the district court did not err by finding that Hopson's claim could have been brought on direct appeal.

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion cannot be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence when that claim could have been raised on direct appeal.

Burdick v. State · filed 2016-10-21

We need not reach the merits of this issue because a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not an appropriate claim in a K.S.A. 60-1507 proceeding.

Section 60-1507 motions cannot raise arguments that could have been raised on direct appeal.

Lee v. State · filed 2016-12-16

Criminal defendants may not use a 60-1507 motion to raise arguments that could have been but were not raised on direct appeal.

Section 60-1507 cannot be used to relitigate claims already resolved on direct appeal.

Horn v. State · filed 2016-12-23

Because this court has already reviewed and rejected Horn's identical arguments in Horn II, Horn is barred by res judicata from repeating those arguments in his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

Section 60-1507 generally bars constitutional trial-error claims omitted from direct appeal unless exceptional circumstances excuse the omission.

Seward v. State · filed 2017-03-10

But in this case, Rule 183(c)(3) bars Seward's three constitutional claims. Seward directly appealed his sentence to the Kansas Supreme Court. Moreover, Seward does not assert an exceptional circumstance that excuses his failure to raise his three constitutional claims in his previous direct appeals. The district court did not err in its summary dismissal of these three claims.

A § 60-1507 appellant cannot obtain review of claims omitted from the motion and evidentiary hearing, and must show exceptional circumstances to raise trial errors omitted from direct appeal.

Marks v. State · filed 2017-06-09

Based on those well-accepted rules, we determine that many of the arguments raised in Marks' and his appellate counsel's briefs are not properly before this court as they were not raised in Marks' K.S.A. 60-1507 motion nor were they raised at the trial court's evidentiary hearing on the same. Additionally, Marks has done nothing to show exceptional circumstances excusing his failure to bring the claims in his direct appeal. Accordingly, we are precluded from hearing the arguments pertaining to the contested evidence—the cell phone and clothing.

Section 60-1507 generally cannot be used to present arguments that were or could have been raised on direct appeal.

Love v. State · filed 2019-04-12

But 60-1507 motions are not intended to be vehicles for arguments that were or could have been presented in a direct appeal.

Section 60-1507 ordinarily cannot be used to relitigate mere trial errors raised, or available to be raised, on direct appeal.

Reynolds v. State · filed 2019-10-18

The State asserts all of the claims listed above are barred from appellate review. We agree; they are issues previously raised in Reynolds I or that could have been raised therein. See Supreme Court Rule 183(c)(3) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 229) ("A proceeding under K.S.A. 60-1507 ordinarily may not be used as a substitute for direct appeal involving mere trial errors or as a substitute for a second appeal. Mere trial errors must be corrected by direct appeal.").

Section 60-1507 permits a prosecutorial error claim that was not raised on direct appeal only if the error affected a constitutional right and exceptional circumstances excuse the omission.

Watts v. State · filed 2020-02-14

But prosecutorial error is not properly raised in a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion unless it affected a constitutional right and there is a showing of exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal on that issue.

Section 60-1507 cannot be used to raise issues that were or could have been raised in a direct criminal appeal.

Wilson v. State · filed 2020-03-06

A second settled principle governing 60-1507 motions recognizes they cannot be used as a device to secure what amounts to a second appeal of the conviction and judgment in the underlying criminal case. So persons filing 60-1507 motions cannot pursue issues they did raise or could have raised in their direct criminal appeals.

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion cannot substitute for a direct appeal to correct ordinary trial or sentencing errors; constitutional trial errors require an exceptional circumstance explaining why they were not raised earlier.

Brinkley v. State · filed 2021-12-17

But a movant cannot use a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion as a substitute for a direct appeal to correct mere trial errors. Supreme Court Rule 183(c)(3) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 239). For this reason, allegations regarding statutory trial or sentencing errors and other trial-level claims that do not implicate constitutional rights cannot be raised in a collateral challenge. See State v. Swisher, 281 Kan. 447, 449-50, 132 P.3d 1274 (2006). And trial errors affecting constitutional rights may only be raised in a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion if the person seeking relief demonstrates some exceptional circumstance—such as the ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel or newfound evidence—that explains why the issues were not previously presented.

Section 60-1507 does not permit a movant to raise an ordinary statutory trial error for the first time in a collateral motion when the error did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.

Macomber v. State · filed 2022-06-10

Macomber's claim is neither jurisdictional nor constitutional. Because he raises a statutory venue error for the first time in his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion and because the trial court's venue error did not lead to loss of jurisdiction, we affirm.

A 60-1507 motion generally cannot substitute for a direct appeal to correct trial errors, but a constitutional claim may be considered when exceptional circumstances excuse the failure to raise it on direct appeal.

Pulliam v. State · filed 2022-07-29

Generally, a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is not intended to be used as a substitute for a direct appeal to correct trial errors. An exception to this general rule authorizes consideration of a claim that may have been asserted in a direct appeal if the issue implicates constitutional rights and exceptional circumstances excuse the failure to raise the issue on direct appeal.

Section 60-1507 does not permit a collateral challenge to an issue the movant could have properly raised at trial or on direct appeal.

State v. Redmon · filed 2022-10-07

But claim preclusion under the doctrine of res judicata is not limited only to a prior decision on the merits. If a movant could have made an argument at trial or on direct appeal but neglected to properly do so, they waive the opportunity to challenge the issue in a collateral attack. ... As in Neer, Redmon could have included his constitutional claim in his direct appeal, but he failed to properly do so, rendering this collateral attack improper.

A claim of prosecutorial error may be reviewed in a section 60-1507 proceeding, but a claim omitted earlier requires a showing of exceptional circumstances for the omission.

Novotny v. State · filed 2024-02-23

We recognize that there may be times in which it may be appropriate to review a claim of prosecutorial error in a K.S.A. 60-1507 proceeding. ... But this is not one of those cases. Here, it is undisputed that Novotny did not raise this argument previously and has made no attempt to show exceptional circumstances for not doing so.

A K.S.A. 60-1507 movant seeking review of a trial error omitted from direct appeal must show exceptional circumstances excusing that omission.

Williams v. State · filed 2025-02-21

Because Williams did not raise any statutory speedy trial right violation on direct appeal and the record reflects that Williams waived his right to a speedy trial, he must prove there are exceptional circumstances for this issue to be considered under his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

Section 60-1507 permits a defendant to raise ineffective assistance of counsel or a Brady disclosure violation in a postconviction habeas action after direct appeal.

State v. Mead · filed 2017-09-15

Even after the initial, direct appeal (like the one now before us), a defendant can still challenge the effectiveness of his or her attorney or the failure of the State to comply with Brady requirements in a habeas corpus action under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-1507.

Section 60-1507 generally does not permit jury-instruction claims that should have been raised on direct appeal unless exceptional circumstances are shown.

Pack v. State · filed 2019-01-25

Pack has not shown an exceptional circumstance. These issues should have been raised on direct appeal. As a result, the district court did not err when it denied these claims.

Section 60-1507(b) requires a hearing unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief.

Snyder v. State · filed 2005-03-04(b)

A district court has a statutory duty to hold a hearing on a 1507 motion unless the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively demonstrate that the movant is entitled to no relief.

Section 60-1507 procedures govern whether a court holds an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw a plea; a hearing requires a substantial issue of fact or law unless the record conclusively shows no entitlement to relief.

State v. Espinoza · filed 2024-10-11

There are no statutory guidelines for when a court should hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw a plea, so this court has directed courts and parties to follow K.S.A. 60-1507 procedures. As such, "[a] hearing on a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is limited to those instances in which the defendant's motion raises substantial issues of fact or law and should be denied when the files and records conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief." State v. Jackson, 255 Kan. 455, 459, 874 P.2d 1138 (1994).

A court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on a section 60-1507 motion unless the claim raises substantial questions of fact or law.

Robinson v. State · filed 1975-11-08

A district court need not grant an evidentiary hearing on a 60-1507 motion unless the claim for relief raises substantial questions of fact or law.

Section 60-1507(b) requires a hearing unless the motion and case files and records conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief.

Morrow v. State · filed 1976-04-10(b)

The guidelines for determining whether to grant a hearing on a 1507 motion are provided in K. S. A. 60-1507 (b) and Supreme Court Rule 121 (f). A hearing should be granted unless the motion and the flies and records of the case conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.

A § 60-1507 motion that raises a genuine factual issue about the petitioner’s competency to plead guilty requires an evidentiary hearing.

Outland v. State · filed 1976-04-10

On the basis of the record before us we have concluded that petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief raises a genuine issue of fact as to petitioner’s competency to plead guilty to the charges contained in the information. Accordingly the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded with directions to afford the defendant an evidentiary hearing on the constitutional issues raised in the petitioner’s motion.

Subsection (b) requires a hearing unless the motion and case record conclusively show no entitlement to relief, and permits the court to decide the motion without the prisoner present.

Van Bebber v. State · filed 1976-06-12(b)

A hearing should be granted unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief. ... The court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the prisoner to be present at the hearing. ... Based on the files and records of the case, the motion and the offers of proof, the district court was correct in finding that appellant’s motion was without merit and that a further hearing with movant present was unnecessary.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must allege facts supporting the claim for relief; a conclusory assertion that counsel gave incorrect advice is insufficient without an evidentiary basis in the record.

Hicks v. State · filed 1976-07-23

To require 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. A mere conclusionary contention that counsel misinformed him, for which no evidentiary basis appears in the record, is not a sufficient basis for requiring an evidentiary hearing for post-conviction relief.

Section 60-1507 does not require an evidentiary hearing or provide post-conviction relief for a conclusory claim that alleges no supporting facts.

Cook v. State · filed 1976-07-23

The trial court did not grant an evidentiary hearing on this claim but summarily denied the petitioner’s motion. On the record here presented this was proper because no factual basis was alleged in his motion to support the claim of an illegal lineup. The mere conclusionary contention of a petitioner for which no evidentiary basis is stated or appears is not a sufficient basis for post-conviction relief.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must allege facts supporting the claim for relief; conclusory allegations alone do not require a hearing.

Sullivan v. State · filed 1977-05-14

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 in the record, is not sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing for post-conviction relief.

Section 60-1507 does not require an evidentiary hearing when the record shows no factual basis for relief.

Poore v. State · filed 1980-07-18

Petitioner’s final claim is that he was denied his right to an evidentiary hearing under K.S.A. 60-1507. The law is well-settled on this point. When no factual basis for relief appears invthe record, the trial court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.

Section 60-1507(b) requires a hearing unless the motion and case files and records conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.

Wright v. State · filed 1980-11-07(b)

A hearing, whether evidentiary or non-evidentiary, should be granted unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.

Section 60-1507 does not provide an evidentiary hearing solely to question a prosecutor’s ethics when the challenged testimony has already been found true.

Palmer v. State · filed 1985-10-31

Even if the evidence at such a hearing indicated the prosecutor introduced true evidence under the mistaken belief it was false, it would fail to show a conviction based on false testimony. To allow evidence that could be effective only to question the ethics of the prosecutor would be to allow an improper use of K.S.A. 60-1507.

Section 60-1507(b) does not require a hearing when the record, pleadings, and motion conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.

State v. Carmichael · filed 1990-12-07(b)

Even when the motions herein are considered under K.S.A. 60-1507, the sentences imposed were clearly within the provisions of the sentencing statutes and were not subject to attack upon the grounds asserted by the defendants. The record, pleadings, and motions conclusively show the defendants were not entitled to the relief requested, and no error has been shown.

Section 60-1507(b) does not require an evidentiary hearing when the motion and case record conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Doolin v. State · filed 1997-11-07(b)

An evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 petition is not required if the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Section 60-1507(b) requires a hearing unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

State v. Chiles · filed 1996-05-31(b)

Under Wright and 60-1507(b), a hearing should be granted unless the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to any relief. Here, the record does conclusively show that the defendant was not entitled to any relief; thus, the trial court did not err in summarily denying the defendant’s motions.

When a court holds a full evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion involving substantial factual issues about events in which the prisoner participated, the prisoner must be allowed to attend.

Lujan v. State · filed 2000-12-08(b)

Under K.S.A. 60-1507(b), Rule 183(h), and our above cases, it is clear that where such a hearing is conducted and substantial issues of fact exist as to events in which the petitioner had participated, the petitioner must be allowed to be present.

Section 60-1507(b) permits denial without an evidentiary hearing when the motion and case record conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Price v. State · filed 2001-04-13(b)

An evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is not required if the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief. K.S.A. 60-1507(b).

Section 60-1507(b) does not require an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Hogan v. State · filed 2002-01-25(b)

If the motion, files, and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief, an evidentiary hearing is not required. K.S.A. 60-1507(b).

Section 60-1507(b) permits denial without an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.

Gilkey v. State · filed 2003-01-03(b)

A hearing, whether evidentiary or non-evidentiary, should be granted unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.

A section 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance does not require an evidentiary hearing when the underlying claim lacks merit.

Bradley v. State · filed 2003-12-19

Furthermore, because the statute Bradley had hoped his attorney would challenge is not unconstitutional, the arguments set forth in his 60-1507 motion did not require an evidentiary hearing. The district court did not err in summarily dismissing Bradley s 60-1507 motion.

Section 60-1507(b) permits denial of an evidentiary hearing when the case files and records conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

McGoldrick v. State · filed 2005-01-21(b)

The evidence stated in the record and presented to the court by competent counsel also supports the district court's decision that McGoldrick was not entitled to appear in court or have an evidentiary hearing on the motion. The files and records of the case conclusively show McGoldrick is not entitled to relief. See K.S.A. 60-1507(b); Supreme Court Rule 183(f),(g), and (j) (2003 Kan. Ct. Rules Annot. 213); Doolin v. State, 24 Kan. App. 2d 500, 501, 947 P.2d 454 (1997).

Section 60-1507(b) requires an evidentiary hearing when the motion and case record do not conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief and substantial factual issues require the prisoner’s participation.

Campbell v. State · filed 2005-06-17(b)

K.S.A. 60-1507(b) requires a hearing “[ujnless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” ... Campbell’s motion contains three claims, however, involving substantial issues of fact related to ineffective assistance of counsel which deserve further consideration with Campbell present at an evidentiary hearing.

Section 60-1507(b) allows a court to deny an evidentiary hearing when the motion and case records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Tomlin v. State · filed 2006-03-31(b)

The district court was not required to hold a hearing if Tomlin’s motion and the files and records of the case conclusively showed he was not entitled to relief. K.S.A. 60-1507(b).

A § 60-1507 movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance claim when the record does not establish whether counsel investigated potentially exculpatory witness information.

Swenson v. State · filed 2006-05-19

The record in this case, however, fails to establish whether defense counsel followed up on Turner’s letter by interviewing or attempting to interview Turner. As a result, we remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether defense counsel was ineffective by failing to investigate Turner as a witness in Swenson’s criminal case.

Section 60-1507(b) requires an evidentiary hearing unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show the prisoner is not entitled to relief.

McDermed v. State · filed 2006-11-09(b)

The district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto, unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show the prisoner is not entitled to relief.

A § 60-1507 movant seeking an evidentiary hearing must state supporting facts and identify witnesses who could prove them, but need not attach witness affidavits.

Swenson v. State · filed 2007-07-27

Although Swenson provided affidavits from some witnesses including Turner, nothing requires that this be done at this stage. All that was required was that he state the facts and then identify the witnesses who would support those facts.

A § 60-1507 movant seeking an evidentiary hearing must state supporting facts and identify supporting witnesses, but need not submit witness affidavits with the motion.

Swenson v. State · filed 2007-10-15

Although Swenson provided affidavits from some witnesses including Turner, nothing requires that this be done at this stage. All that was required was that he state the facts and then identify the witnesses who would support those facts.

Section 60-1507(b) requires an evidentiary hearing unless the motion and case record conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to relief.

Scott v. Werholtz · filed 2007-11-21(b)

The trial court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto, unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show the prisoner is not entitled to relief. ... The record in this case conclusively establishes that Scott is not entitled to relief under K.S.A. 60-1507 on this issue.

Section 60-1507 does not require a full evidentiary hearing when the files and records conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to relief.

Love v. Roberts · filed 2007-12-06

The court notes one issue that petitioner raised before the appellate court that was neither explicitly addressed by the appellate court nor procedurally defaulted: the trial court’s failure to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s § 60-1507 motion. Because the trial court found that the files and records conclusively showed that petitioner was not entitled to relief, no evidentiary hearing was required.

A court deciding a § 60-1507 motion must make explicit findings and conclusions on each specific issue, and missing findings require remand when they impede appellate review.

Haddock v. State · filed 2006-11-09

As to the defendant’s due process claims regarding the hair and fingernail scrapings, Supreme Court Rule 183(j) (2005 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 228) requires a district court reviewing a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding each of the movant’s specific issues. When tire lack of findings impedes appellate review, remand is required.

At a full evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion, telephone participation does not satisfy a movant’s right to be present when the court gives only the nature of the conviction as a reason to deny physical presence and the movant has substantial difficulty hearing the proceedings.

Fischer v. State · filed 2009-04-17(b)

We conclude that "presence" of a 60-1507 movant at a full evidentiary hearing does not include mere telephonic participation where: (1) the record fails to cite any basis for denial of physical presence other than the nature of the movant's conviction; and (2) the record reflects substantial difficulty in the movant's ability to hear the proceedings.

Section 60-1507(b) requires an evidentiary hearing when the motion and case records do not conclusively show that the movant is ineligible for relief, including when newly discovered evidence claims raise unresolved factual issues.

Moncla v. State · filed 2008-03-05(b)

An evidentiary hearing on Moncla’s K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is not required if the motion together with the files and records of the case conclusively show that Monda is not entitled to relief. See K.S.A. 60-1507(b). ... We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying a hearing on Moncla’s newly discovered evidence claims.

Section 60-1507(b) permits denial without an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records conclusively show the prisoner is not entitled to relief.

Crowther v. State · filed 2011-03-25(b)

We conclude Crowther’s K.S.A. 60-1507 motion together with the files and records of the case conclusively show that Crowther was not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying Crowther’s K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Section 60-1507 requires an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective appellate counsel claim when the existing record cannot resolve whether counsel’s failure to supply material for the appeal was deficient and prejudicial.

Holmes v. State · filed 2011-06-10

In conclusion, we hold that the district court erred in dismissing, without an evidentiaiy hearing, Holmes’ claim under K.S.A. 60-1507 that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to include the videotape and transcript in the record on appeal in Holmes II. Accordingly, this particular issue is remanded to the district court for an evidentiaiy hearing.

A full evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 is required when the motion raises substantial factual issues about events in which the movant participated, and the movant has a statutory right to attend that hearing.

State v. Webber · filed 2009-10-09(b)

Accordingly, we hold a full evidentiary hearing in a K.S.A. 60-1507 proceeding is required when two requirements are met: First, the claims presented in the motion raise substantial fact issues; and second, the fact issues concern events about which the movant has personal knowledge because he or she participated in the events. Because Hardman testified about the conference held with Webber after sentencing to discuss an appeal and about the effectiveness of Hardman’s representation at trial, both of the requirements were satisfied by the hearing held in this case. Thus, the hearing should be properly classified a full evidentiary hearing. Webber’s presence was required.

A § 60-1507 movant must provide a factual basis for a claim to obtain an evidentiary hearing; once that burden is met, the court must hold a hearing unless a second or successive motion seeks similar relief.

Sola-Morales v. State · filed 2014-10-24

We begin our review of Sola-Morales' claims by acknowledging his burden. "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." Holmes v. State, 292 Kan. 271, 274, 252 P.3d 573 (2011). Once a movant satisfies that burden, we are "required to grant a hearing, unless the motion is 'second' or 'successive' and seeks similar relief." 292 Kan. at 274 (quoting Holt v. State, 290 Kan. 491, 495, 232 P.3d 848 [2010]).

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must support the claim with more than conclusory allegations and identify an evidentiary basis in the motion or record.

Grossman v. State · filed 2014-11-21

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.

A § 60-1507 motion does not require an evidentiary hearing when the existing record adequately resolves the claims.

Stafford v. State · filed 2015-10-30

Because the record provided adequate information to access his claims, we find a hearing was not necessary.

A movant need not submit sworn affidavits to obtain an evidentiary hearing if the motion identifies facts, witnesses, or other evidence that could support relief.

Bell v. State · filed 2015-11-06(b)

Although the State accurately points out that the purported affidavits from LaQuita, Rayshawn, and Gnett, provided by Bell in support of his 60-1507 motion do not qualify as affidavits, Bell was not required to provide an affidavit at this stage of the proceedings. ... He needed to only "'set forth a factual background, names of witnesses or other sources of evidence to demonstrate that [movant] is entitled to relief.'"

Section 60-1507(b) requires a hearing unless the motion and case record conclusively show no entitlement to relief, and a summary denial must include findings and conclusions sufficient for appellate review.

McRae v. State · filed 2016-01-22(b)

District courts are required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion and make findings of fact and conclusions of law, with respect thereto, unless the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief. K.S.A. 60-1507(b); Supreme Court Rule 183(f) and (j) (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 271). ... We direct the district court to conduct whatever proceedings it deems necessary under Rule 183(f) and to enter a journal entry in full compliance with Rule 183(j).

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must make nonconclusory claims supported by an evidentiary basis or by the record.

Harris v. State · filed 2016-05-13

To avoid the summary denial of a motion brought under K.S.A. 60-1507, a movant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. To meet this burden, a movant's contentions must be more than conclusory, and either the movant must set forth an evidentiary basis to support those contentions or the basis must be evident from the record.

Section 60-1507(b) requires an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective-assistance claim unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.

State v. Denomme · filed 2016-05-27(b)

Under K.S.A. 60-1507(b), trial courts are required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a prisoner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel "[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief."

A section 60-1507 movant must state an evidentiary basis for a claim to warrant an evidentiary hearing; conclusory contentions do not suffice.

Miskell v. State · filed 2016-07-15

Furthermore, movants bear the burden to prove that their K.S.A. 60-1507 motion warrant an evidentiary hearing. To do so, a movant's contentions must be more than conclusory; the movant must state an evidentiary basis in support of the claims, or the basis must be evident from the record.

A § 60-1507 movant must support nonconclusory claims with an evidentiary basis, either stated in the motion or apparent from the record, to obtain a hearing.

Frost v. State · filed 2016-07-29

To avoid the summary denial of a motion brought under K.S.A. 60-1507, a movant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. To meet this burden, a movant's contentions must be more than conclusory and either the movant must set forth an evidentiary basis to support those contentions or the basis must be evident from the record. If such a showing is made, the court is required to hold a hearing unless the motion is a second or successive motion seeking similar relief.

Section 60-1507(b) requires an evidentiary hearing unless the motion, files, and case records conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief.

Dunlap v. State · filed 2016-08-05(b)

Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that Dunlap is entitled to no relief on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court will need to set the matter for an evidentiary hearing to resolve those claims.

Section 60-1507 permits summary denial without an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and record conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

Taylor v. State · filed 2016-10-07

A district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507 if the motion— together with the files and record—conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Section 60-1507 requires an evidentiary hearing when a movant presents a substantial issue about whether trial counsel adequately argued a motion to suppress.

Friday v. State · filed 2016-11-23

We regard this claim as sufficient to raise a substantial issue warranting an evidentiary hearing, and the district court erred in not further exploring it.

Section 60-1507(b) requires an evidentiary hearing unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

Williams v. State · filed 2016-12-23(b)

District courts are required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion and make findings of fact and conclusions of law unless the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under Section 60-1507 must support nonconclusory allegations with an evidentiary basis stated in the motion or evident from the record.

Glover v. State · filed 2016-12-23

To avoid the summary denial of a motion brought under K.S.A. 60-1507, a movant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. To meet this burden, a movant's contentions must be more than conclusory, and either the movant must set forth an evidentiary basis to support those contentions or the basis must be evident from the record.

An affidavit may support a request for an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507, but the movant must prove the claim at the hearing with admissible evidence; an affidavit alone cannot support relief.

Nelson v. State · filed 2017-01-27(b)

An affidavit, like the one from Wilson, may be used to support a request for an evidentiary hearing on a 60-1507 motion assuming it contains relevant information to which the affiant could testify at the hearing. ... At that stage, an affidavit, standing alone, does not present or constitute admissible evidence supporting substantive relief.