Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507

A § 60-1507 movant must support more than conclusory allegations with an evidentiary basis to obtain a hearing, unless the motion is successive and seeks similar relief.

Logan v. State · filed 2017-02-10

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 requires an evidentiary hearing when a motion alleges facts outside the original record that, if true, would entitle the movant to relief.

Harris v. State · filed 2017-03-03

"It is erroneous to deny a 60-1507 motion without an evidentiary hearing where the motion alleges facts which do not appear in the original record, which if true would entitle the movant to relief." ... Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal of Harris' motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Section 60-1507(b) does not require an evidentiary hearing when the motion presents no substantial issue of fact.

Atkinson v. State · filed 2017-05-19(b)

However, an evidentiary hearing is not required if no substantial issue of fact is presented by the motion.

Section 60-1507 permits summary denial only when the motion and case record conclusively show no entitlement to relief; a movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when alleged facts, if true, would warrant relief and the motion identifies available supporting evidence.

Graf v. State · filed 2017-06-16

When examining a defendant's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, one of our options is to summarily deny relief if the motion, files, and case records conclusively show the prisoner is not entitled to relief. See Fischer v. State, 296 Kan. 808, 822-23, 295 P.3d 560 (2013). But the movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the motion alleges facts which, if true, would entitle the movant to relief and the motion identifies readily available witnesses whose testimony would support such facts or other sources of evidence. Swenson v. State, 284 Kan. 931, 939, 169 P.3d 298 (2007).

A § 60-1507 motion may be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records conclusively show no viable issue of fact or law entitling the movant to a hearing.

Wilson v. State · filed 2017-06-23

To the extent, if any, that Wilson's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion survives the procedural bars above discussed, we conclude that the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show that Wilson has not carried the burden of providing any viable issue of fact or question of law which would entitle him to an evidentiary hearing.

A § 60-1507 movant seeking an evidentiary hearing must support the assertions with evidence or a basis evident from the record; conclusory statements do not suffice.

Denmark-Wagner v. State · filed 2017-09-15

To avoid a summary denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, Denmark-Wagner bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. This burden requires that Denmark-Wagner's assertions be more than conclusory statements. He must either set forth an evidentiary basis to support the assertions or the basis must be evident from the record.

A § 60-1507 movant must support claims with specific facts in the motion or court record to obtain an evidentiary hearing; conclusory allegations do not suffice.

Ketley v. State · filed 2017-09-22

To obtain an evidentiary hearing, the movant's claims must be based on more than mere conclusory statements. In addition, evidence to support the claims must be cited in the motion or otherwise appear in the court record. ... We too conclude that he is not entitled to relief and his allegations do not justify an evidentiary hearing because he does not assert new facts that raise a substantial issue.

Section 60-1507(b) gives the district court discretion to order a prisoner’s attendance at an evidentiary hearing.

Fleming v. State · filed 2017-09-01(b)

By its plain words, K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 60-1507(b) permits judicial discretion in ordering a prisoner's attendance at the evidentiary hearing.

A motion under Section 60-1507 must provide a factual basis that warrants an evidentiary hearing; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

Johnson v. State · filed 2018-03-02

Mere conclusions are not enough—the movant must allege facts that warrant a hearing and the factual basis for the hearing must be either in the motion or elsewhere in the court record.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must support more than conclusory allegations with facts stated in the motion or evident from the record to avoid summary denial.

Ortega v. State · filed 2018-04-13

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.

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

Holland v. State · filed 2018-04-27

To avoid the summary denial of a motion brought under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 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 appellate court may reverse a conviction on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without remanding for an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and record establish prejudice from counsel’s ineffectiveness.

Calhoun v. State · filed 2018-07-27

For this same reason, if the motion, files, and record of the case establish that a K.S.A. 60-1507 movant has been prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness, appellate courts may reverse a defendant's unconstitutional conviction without first remanding for an evidentiary hearing on the movant's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

A movant seeking relief under § 60-1507 must establish an evidentiary basis for the claims in the motion or the record; conclusory claims may be denied without a hearing.

Bell v. State · filed 2018-09-14

In a motion for relief under K.S.A. 60-1507, the movant bears the burden of establishing an evidentiary basis for the claims. To meet this burden, the movant must set forth an evidentiary basis for the claims within the motion or an evidentiary basis must be apparent from the record. ... When a movant makes merely conclusory arguments without evidentiary support, the district court may deny the motion without a hearing.

A district court reviewing a 60-1507 motion without an evidentiary hearing must credit its factual allegations unless the criminal case record conclusively rebuts them.

Perez v. State · filed 2018-11-02

Absent an evidentiary hearing, the district court must credit the factual allegations in the 60-1507 motion unless they are conclusively rebutted in the record of the criminal case.

Section 60-1507 requires a movant seeking an evidentiary hearing to support claims with facts in the motion or facts evident from the record; conclusory contentions are insufficient.

Ferenz v. State · filed 2018-11-09

To avoid the summary denial of a K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-1507 motion, a movant bears the burden of establishing that he or she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. To meet this burden, a movant's contentions must be more than conclusory. In other words, either the movant must set forth an evidentiary basis to support those contentions in the motion or the basis must be evident from the record.

After a full evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion, the district court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law; appellate courts review factual findings for substantial competent evidence and ultimate legal conclusions de novo.

Llamas 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 on all issues presented. See 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 enough to support the court's conclusions of law. Appellate review of the district court's ultimate conclusions of law is de novo.

Section 60-1507 requires a movant seeking an evidentiary hearing to support the motion with more than conclusory allegations; the evidentiary basis must appear in the motion or the record.

Kelley v. State · filed 2018-11-30

To avoid the summary denial of a claim for relief under K.S.A. 60-1507, a movant bears the burden of establishing that he or she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. To meet this burden, a movant's contentions must be more than conclusory. In other words, either the movant must set forth an evidentiary basis to support those contentions in the motion or the basis must be evident from the record.

A § 60-1507 movant must provide an evidentiary basis for a claim, or show that one appears in the record, to obtain an evidentiary hearing.

Brown v. State · filed 2018-12-21

This claim did not merit an evidentiary hearing because Brown failed to provide an evidentiary basis to support it and no such basis appears in the record.

A district court may deny a Section 60-1507 motion without an evidentiary hearing if its records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Taylor v. State · filed 2019-02-15(b)

The district court ruled against Taylor on these claims without an evidentiary hearing. The court has that option if the court's records show conclusively that Taylor was not entitled to relief on these claims.

Section 60-1507 permits a district court to summarily deny a motion when the motion and criminal case record conclusively show no entitlement to relief, hold a preliminary hearing, or hold a full evidentiary hearing.

Sumpter v. State · filed 2019-01-18

A district court has three procedural options in considering a 60-1507 motion. The district court may summarily deny the motion if the claims in the motion and the record in the underlying criminal case conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief. Or the district court may conduct a preliminary hearing with lawyers for the State and the movant to determine if a full evidentiary hearing is warranted. Finally, the district court may hold a full evidentiary hearing.

Section 60-1507 permits dismissal without a full evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and record conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.

Rincon v. State · filed 2019-03-29

Thus, the district court did not err in summarily dismissing Rincon's 60-1507 motion because the motion, files, and record conclusively show he was entitled to no relief.

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

Smith v. State · filed 2019-04-19(b)

Under K.S.A. 60-1507(b), the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing unless the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to relief.

A § 60-1507 movant seeking an evidentiary hearing must support the claims with evidence or a basis evident from the record; conclusory claims do not suffice.

Loyo v. State · filed 2019-05-03

To avoid the summary denial of a K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-1507 motion, a movant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. To meet this burden, a movant's claims must be more than conclusory. In other words, the movant must provide either an evidentiary basis to support those claims or the basis must be evident from the record.

A § 60-1507 movant must provide an evidentiary basis for the claims to obtain an evidentiary hearing; conclusory assertions are insufficient.

Wilson v. State · filed 2019-06-21(b)

The prisoner, as the moving party, bears the burden of establishing an evidentiary basis supporting his or her claims for relief to warrant an evidentiary hearing; mere conclusory contentions are insufficient.

Section 60-1507 requires an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records do not conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Brown v. State · filed 2019-07-19

We find the district court must hold a hearing on this claim because the motion, files, and records of the case do not conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

A movant must support claims with an evidentiary basis to obtain a hearing under § 60-1507; conclusory assertions do not suffice.

Reu-El v. State · filed 2019-10-04(b)

The movant bears the burden of establishing an evidentiary basis supporting his or her claims for relief in order to warrant an evidentiary hearing; mere conclusory contentions are insufficient.

Section 60-1507(b) permits summary denial without an evidentiary hearing when the movant offers only conclusory allegations and no evidentiary basis for them.

Richard v. State · filed 2020-01-21(b)

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. ... There was nothing presented other than Richard's conclusions that could establish an evidentiary basis for his claims. Something more than what was offered was required to justify an evidentiary hearing.

A § 60-1507 movant must establish that the claims warrant an evidentiary hearing to avoid summary denial.

Hutcherson v. State · filed 2020-03-13(b)

To avoid summary denial of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, Hutcherson bore the burden of establishing that his claims warranted an evidentiary hearing.

A court may summarily deny a Section 60-1507 motion without a hearing when the motion, files, and record conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Salcido v. State · filed 2020-04-17

The district court must conduct an evidentiary hearing unless the motion, files, and record conclusively show that the movant isn't entitled to relief. ... The district court did not err when it summarily denied his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without a hearing.

Section 60-1507(b) requires an evidentiary hearing and findings of fact and conclusions of law unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show the movant has no right to relief.

Whittker v. State · filed 2020-04-24(b)

The district court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a 60-1507 motion and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to it, unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show the movant has no right to relief. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-1507(b); Supreme Court Rule 183(f) and (j) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 223).

Section 60-1507 does not require an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective-assistance claim when the movant cannot show prejudice.

Edmond v. State · filed 2019-12-13

Because Edmond cannot show prejudice, he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim.

A court may deny a Section 60-1507 motion without an evidentiary hearing when the motion and case file conclusively show that the prisoner is not entitled to relief; the movant must allege specific facts warranting a hearing.

Johnson v. State · filed 2020-05-15(b)

When the district court denies habeas relief without holding a hearing, we independently review the motion and case file to determine whether they conclusively show that the prisoner wasn't entitled to relief. In doing so, we look to see whether the movant has set out specific factual allegations that would merit an evidentiary hearing.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must give a sufficient factual basis for the claim; naming potential alibi witnesses without explaining their testimony or its effect is insufficient.

Jones v. State · filed 2020-05-22(b)

Though he provides names of two potential alibi witnesses, he fails to provide any factual background for these witnesses—how they were important, what they might say, or how their statements may have affected his trial. It was Jones' burden to provide a sufficient factual description to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must support the claim with facts from the existing record or new allegations; conclusory allegations alone are insufficient.

Rodriguez v. State · filed 2020-06-12

Under K.S.A. 60-1507, the movant must show that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Doing so requires more than mere conclusory allegations—there must be an evidentiary basis for the movant's claims in the existing record or from new allegations.

A court may summarily deny a § 60-1507 motion without an evidentiary hearing when the case file conclusively shows that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.

Bernhardt v. State · filed 2020-06-12(b)

The district court may summarily deny an inmate's habeas motion without holding an evidentiary hearing when the court's file conclusively shows that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must support nonconclusory contentions with an evidentiary basis, either supplied by the movant or evident from the record.

Pena-Gonzales v. State · filed 2020-06-26

To avoid the summary denial of a motion brought under K.S.A. 60-1507, the movant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. To meet this burden, the movant's contentions must be more than conclusory, and 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 unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief.

Fisher v. State · filed 2020-07-02(b)

When considering a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, the district court's obligation is to hold an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto, "[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show the [movant] is entitled to no relief." K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-1507(b); Supreme Court Rule 183(f), (j).

A 60-1507 motion requires an evidentiary hearing when the record cannot resolve factual questions about counsel’s investigation and presentation of identified witnesses.

Logsdon v. State · filed 2020-07-10

We hold that this issue requires the presentation of evidence and cannot be summarily dismissed.

A § 60-1507 movant must provide a sufficient factual basis for a claim to warrant an evidentiary hearing; absent that showing, the motion may be summarily denied.

Perales v. State · filed 2020-07-31(b)

As such, he has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for his claims. The district court did not err in summarily denying Perales' K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must support the claim with more than conclusory contentions by identifying supporting evidence or a basis in the record.

State v. Ritz · filed 2020-08-07

To receive an evidentiary hearing on their motions for habeas corpus relief under K.S.A. 60-1507, prisoners must make more than conclusory contentions. The movants must state what evidence supports their claims or show the basis for their claims in the record.

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

Taylor v. State · filed 2020-08-14

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. Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875, 881, 335 P.3d 1162 (2014).

A § 60-1507 motion may be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Thompson v. State · filed 2020-09-04

When the district court summarily dismisses a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, an appellate court conducts a de novo review to determine whether the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to relief. ... In summary, the record clearly demonstrates that Thompson has failed to carry his burden to warrant remand for an evidentiary hearing on any the issues he brings on appeal.

A court may summarily deny a Section 60-1507 motion without a hearing when the motion, files, and records conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

Jaghoori v. State · filed 2021-03-05(b)

First, the court may summarily deny the motion without a hearing if the motion, files, and records from the case conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

Section 60-1507 permits denial of an evidentiary hearing when the movant offers only a conclusory claim without an evidentiary basis.

Cardenas v. State · filed 2021-03-05

Because Cardenas fails to provide more than a conclusory claim, the district court properly denied his request for an evidentiary hearing.

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

Young v. State · filed 2021-04-30(b)

When a prisoner challenges his or her sentence under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1507, the district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion's allegations "[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-1507(b).

A § 60-1507 motion does not warrant a preliminary hearing when the motion, files, and case records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Broadnax v. State · filed 2021-04-23(b)

Because the motion, files, and case records conclusively show that Broadnax is not entitled to relief and the issues raised are not properly before us, we dismiss Broadnax's appeal.

A movant under K.S.A. 60-1507 must provide more than conclusory claims and an evidentiary basis to obtain a hearing, unless the motion is successive and seeks similar relief.

Coryell v. State · filed 2021-05-21

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 the movant makes such a showing, the court must 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 records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Chanthaseng v. State · filed 2021-06-11(b)

District courts 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, files, and records of the case conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

An evidentiary hearing on a Section 60-1507 motion is unnecessary when the motion, files, and records conclusively show the movant has no right to relief.

Thomas v. State · filed 2021-06-18(b)

An evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is not required if the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the movant has no right to relief.

A court may deny a § 60-1507 motion without an evidentiary hearing when the movant fails to establish a viable claim for relief.

Beltz v. State · filed 2021-07-09

In sum, Beltz failed to establish a viable claim that Sevart provided ineffective assistance of counsel based on the narrow issue he has raised on appeal. The district court properly made this determination without holding an evidentiary hearing. Thus, we conclude the district court did not err in denying Beltz' K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing on a Section 60-1507 motion must provide more than conclusory allegations and identify an evidentiary basis for the claims, unless that basis is evident from the record.

State v. Denney · filed 2021-08-20

To avoid the summary denial of a motion brought under K.S.A. 60-1507, a movant bears the burden of establishing they are entitled to an evidentiary hearing. To meet this burden, the movant must make more than conclusory contentions, 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) does not require an evidentiary hearing when the motion offers only vague allegations without supporting facts in the motion or record.

Razzaq v. State · filed 2021-08-27(b)

Razzaq's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion did not warrant an evidentiary hearing. Razzaq only offers vague allegations and no facts to support any of his claims, and—where his claims could be viable 60-1507 claims at all—no basis can be found in the record. Even liberally construed, Razzaq's motion does not entitle him to an evidentiary hearing.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must support the claims with an evidentiary basis in the motion or record; conclusory contentions are insufficient.

State v. Griffin · filed 2021-09-10

To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, a 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. [Citation omitted.]" Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875, 881, 335 P.3d 1162 (2014). Here, we find that Griffin's claims are conclusory and not supported by the record on appeal.

After a § 60-1507 motion survives summary denial and receives an evidentiary hearing, the movant must prove the allegations with evidence; a prior ruling that the allegations would warrant relief if true does not establish them.

Rucker v. State · filed 2021-10-01

Under the summary dismissal standard, the panel merely determined that if Rucker's assertions were taken as true, then it could not be conclusively said that he was entitled to no relief. ... On remand, the district court needed to determine whether Rucker could prove, by presenting evidence, that his allegations were true.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 claim must do more than make conclusory contentions and must identify an evidentiary basis for the claim unless one appears in the record.

McConnell v. State · filed 2021-10-01

To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim, McConnell "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. [Citation omitted.]" Sola- Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875, 881, 335 P.3d 1162 (2014). A review of the record reveals that McConnell's claims are conclusory and not supported by the record on appeal.

A § 60-1507 movant seeking an evidentiary hearing must provide an evidentiary basis for the claim; a conclusory assertion does not require a hearing.

Raskie v. State · filed 2021-10-22

But Raskie's argument ignores that he had to provide the trial court with an evidentiary basis to support his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel within his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

A movant under § 60-1507 must provide an evidentiary basis for the claim, or one apparent from the record, to obtain an evidentiary hearing and avoid summary dismissal.

Belone v. State · filed 2021-11-24

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, the movant must make more than conclusory contentions, and either the movant must set forth an evidentiary basis to support those contentions or the basis must be evident from the record.

A motion under § 60-1507 must allege specific facts that, if true, would entitle the movant to relief to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

Robinson v. State · filed 2021-12-17

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion must be supported with specific facts that, if true, would entitle the movant to relief on his or her claims.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing on a 60-1507 motion must support the claim with more than conclusory assertions and identify an evidentiary basis, either in the motion or in the record.

Bemis v. State · filed 2022-01-07

To avoid summary denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, 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 movant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Section 60-1507 when the motion presents no viable ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Koop v. State · filed 2022-01-21

Koop failed to present a viable ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and as such cannot show he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion may be summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Armstrong v. State · filed 2022-02-18

When, as here, the district court summarily dismisses a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, our review is unlimited. In particular, we must determine whether the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to relief.

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion may be denied without an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Darnell v. State · filed 2022-03-11

When the district court summarily denies a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, we review the record to determine whether the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to relief. ... While Comfort should have adequately prepared Darnell to testify, the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish that Darnell was not prejudiced by Comfort's performance and is therefore not entitled to relief.

A § 60-1507 movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the motion alleges facts that, if true, would entitle the movant to relief.

Glasgow v. State · filed 2022-04-01

The district court must grant an evidentiary hearing when the motion sets forth facts that, if true, would entitle the movant to relief.

A court may deny a § 60-1507 motion without an evidentiary hearing when the movant offers only conclusory claims and no evidentiary basis for relief.

Tran v. State · filed 2022-05-13

Because he failed to do so, his contentions of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were merely conclusory and it was proper for the trial court to deny his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Section 60-1507 requires an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records do not conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief.

Thomas v. State · filed 2022-05-13(b)

Therefore, the motion, files, and records do not conclusively show that Thomas is not entitled to relief, and thus this court reverses the district court's denial of Thomas' ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim and remands for an evidentiary hearing on this claim.

A § 60-1507 movant must show that the motion warrants an evidentiary hearing; a court may summarily deny the motion when that burden is not met.

Campbell v. State · filed 2022-06-10(b)

Our review of the record shows that Campbell's trial counsel was not ineffective and that Campbell has failed to meet his burden to show his motion warranted an evidentiary hearing. The district court did not err in summarily denying Campbell's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

A movant must provide an evidentiary basis for a claim to warrant an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507; a bare assertion is insufficient.

Young v. State · filed 2022-07-01(b)

But other than his summary assertion that his attorney should have presented a mental-defect defense, Young provides no evidence to support his allegation. This allegation, standing alone, is not enough to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

A § 60-1507 movant must allege facts sufficient to warrant a hearing; conclusory or unsupported assertions do not establish a substantial issue of fact.

State v. Forney · filed 2022-07-22(b)

The movant—including pro se movants—bears the burden to allege facts sufficient to warrant a hearing on the motion, and mere conclusions or unsupported assertions are not enough to raise a substantial issue of fact.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must allege more than conclusory contentions.

Williams v. State · filed 2022-08-26

Here, Williams, as the movant, bears the burden to establish his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion warrants an evidentiary hearing by alleging more than conclusory contentions.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must provide an evidentiary basis for the claim; conclusory statements do not suffice.

Taylor v. State · filed 2022-08-26(b)

To make the threshold showing necessary to warrant an evidentiary hearing under K.S.A. 60-1507, a movant cannot simply make conclusory statements. Instead, the movant must provide an evidentiary basis for his or her assertions.

A § 60-1507 movant must support a request for an evidentiary hearing with more than conclusory allegations; unsupported claims may be summarily denied.

Franco-Monserrate v. State · filed 2022-09-09(b)

And like with his other claim on appeal, conclusory contentions are insufficient to establish entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. As a result, the district court did not err when it summarily denied Franco's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must provide more than conclusory claims and show an evidentiary basis for relief; otherwise the court may summarily deny the motion.

Wren v. State · filed 2022-09-23

A district court may summarily deny a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing if the movant fails to show they are entitled to relief.

A § 60-1507 movant seeking an evidentiary hearing must provide more than conclusory contentions and state an evidentiary basis for the claims.

Graf v. State · filed 2022-10-21

As the movant, Graf bears the burden to prove his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion warranted an evidentiary hearing by making more than conclusory contentions and stating an evidentiary basis in support of his claims.

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

Lloyd v. State · filed 2022-11-04(b)

First, the district court may summarily deny the motion without a hearing if the motion, files, and records from the case conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must provide an evidentiary basis for the claim; conclusory statements do not suffice.

Jones v. State · filed 2022-12-02

To make the threshold showing necessary to warrant an evidentiary hearing under K.S.A. 60-1507, a movant cannot simply make conclusory statements. Instead, the movant must provide an evidentiary basis for his or her assertions.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must plead more than conclusory allegations and provide an evidentiary basis for the claims, unless one appears in the record.

Pugh v. State · filed 2022-12-23

But the burden lies with the defendants to plead their case. Swenson v. State, 284 Kan. 931, 938, 169 P.3d 298 (2007) ("[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."). Pugh did not meet that burden.

A motion under § 60-1507 must allege more than conclusory claims to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

Perales v. State · filed 2023-01-27(b)

To warrant an evidentiary hearing, a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion must allege something more than conclusory claims.

A § 60-1507 motion warrants an evidentiary hearing when it alleges facts outside the original record that, if true, would entitle the movant to relief and identifies available supporting witnesses or other evidence; affidavits are not specifically required.

Bates v. State · filed 2023-01-27(b)

Although the district court disregarded the letters attached to Bates' original motion and focuses on the lack of affidavits from all purported witnesses, our Supreme Court has found its rule does not specifically require affidavits. Rather, the district court errs when denying a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without a hearing where "the motion alleges facts which do not appear in the original record but which, if true, would entitle the movant to relief, and the motion identifies readily available witnesses whose testimony would support such facts or other sources of evidence." Swenson, 284 Kan. at 939. We cannot determine, after review of the motion, files, and records of this case, that such records conclusively show Bates is entitled to no relief. See K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 60-1507(b); Supreme Court Rule 183(f). Therefore, we remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing on Bates' K.S.A. 60-1507 motion regarding whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate the testimony of Schillaci and in failing to call the investigator at trial.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must allege more than conclusory contentions.

Hollenbeck v. State · filed 2023-11-09

Hollenbeck, as the movant, bears the burden to establish his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion warrants an evidentiary hearing by alleging more than conclusory contentions.

A § 60-1507 movant must allege supporting facts to obtain an evidentiary hearing; conclusory allegations with no factual basis in the record do not suffice.

Meggerson v. State · filed 2024-01-12(b)

Thus, even a liberal construction of Meggerson's motion shows he did not meet his burden to allege facts sufficient to warrant a hearing on these claims because the allegations were merely conclusory, and no factual basis to support the claims appears from the record.

A § 60-1507 movant whose claims are conclusory is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Caddell v. State · filed 2024-04-19(b)

Caddell's claims are conclusory and do not warrant an evidentiary hearing. Thus, we affirm the summary denial of Caddell's 60-1507 motion.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion must support nonconclusory contentions with an evidentiary basis in the motion or the record.

Carter v. State · filed 2024-05-03

A movant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. To do so, their contentions must be more than conclusory and either set forth an evidentiary basis to support those contentions or the basis must be evident from the record.

A motion under § 60-1507 must identify readily available sources of evidence supporting its factual allegations to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

Castro v. State · filed 2024-05-24

But Kansas courts have also stated that to warrant an evidentiary hearing, a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 must list readily available sources of evidence that support the facts alleged in the motion.

A § 60-1507 movant must provide an evidentiary basis for a claim; speculative allegations do not warrant an evidentiary hearing and may be summarily dismissed.

Antalek v. State · filed 2024-06-14(b)

Antalek bears the burden to come forth with an evidentiary basis for his claims. Because he failed to do so, the district court was correct to summarily dismiss his motion.

A movant must support a K.S.A. 60-1507 claim with more than conclusory allegations to obtain an evidentiary hearing; otherwise, the court may summarily deny the motion.

Ross v. State · filed 2024-07-12

If the defendant fails to make more than conclusory claims without evidentiary support, then the district court may summarily deny the defendant's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without a hearing.

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

Dartez v. State · filed 2024-08-09

The procedural posture of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion also affects the nature and scope of our review. When, as here, the district court conducts a full evidentiary hearing and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law in ruling on the motion, we apply the mixed standard of review generally applied in similar civil cases. ... When applying this standard, an appellate court must determine whether the district court's factual findings are supported by substantial competent evidence and whether those findings are sufficient to support the district court's conclusions of law. In the end, the district court's conclusions of law and its decision to grant or deny the K.S.A. 60-1507 motion are reviewed using a de novo standard of review.

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

Gihring v. State · filed 2024-09-27(b)

When a defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel under K.S.A. 60- 1507, the district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion "[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief."

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

Becker v. State · filed 2024-10-11(b)

In other words, the district court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, unless the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

Section 60-1507(b) permits summary denial without a preliminary or evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and records conclusively show the movant is not entitled to relief.

Alfaro-Valleda v. State · filed 2024-10-18(b)

The district court is not required to hold a preliminary or full evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and case records conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief.

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

State v. Combs · filed 2025-01-10(b)

The district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing and may summarily deny the K.S.A. 60-1507 motion when the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show Combs is not entitled to relief.

Section 60-1507 permits summary denial without an evidentiary hearing when the motion, files, and case records conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.

Vigil v. State · filed 2025-02-07

When handling a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, the court may determine that the motion, files, and case records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief and summarily deny the motion.

A court may summarily deny a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion when it presents no genuine issue of fact or law establishing valid grounds for relief.

Midgyett v. State · filed 2025-03-14

But regardless of what point(s) Midgyett intended to address on appeal, we find the district court properly denied Midgyett's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion as the motion presented no genuine issues of fact or law establishing any valid grounds for relief.

A § 60-1507 movant must offer more than conclusory allegations and provide an evidentiary basis, or show one in the record, to obtain an evidentiary hearing.

Ricke v. State · filed 2025-05-02

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.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must provide more than conclusory allegations and must identify supporting evidence or show that the record supplies it.

Jackson v. State · filed 2025-06-20

Jackson, as the movant, bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. To meet this burden, Jackson's contentions must be more than conclusory, and he must set forth an evidentiary basis to support those contentions or the basis must be evident from the record.

A § 60-1507 movant seeking an evidentiary hearing must support claims with more than conclusory assertions by identifying an evidentiary basis or pointing to one in the record.

Lax v. State · filed 2025-07-18

Lax bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. To meet this burden, his 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.

A movant seeking relief under § 60-1507 must show that an evidentiary hearing is necessary; the motion may be summarily denied when the motion, files, and records conclusively establish no entitlement to relief.

Smith v. State · filed 2025-08-29(b)

The motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish Smith is not entitled to relief on his allegations that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in advising Smith on the nature of the charges to which he pled guilty or his potential sentence under the parties' joint recommendation in the plea agreement. Smith failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that an evidentiary hearing was necessary given the record that contradicts his allegations.

A pro se movant seeking a hearing on a Section 60-1507 motion must allege facts sufficient to warrant one, even though the court liberally construes the pleading.

Towner v. State · filed 2025-07-18

We agree, and we do so here, yet a pro se movant still bears the burden to allege facts sufficient to warrant a hearing on the motion.

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

Brown v. State · filed 2025-10-31

A movant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. The 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.

A K.S.A. 60-1507 movant must present more than conclusory claims to obtain an evidentiary hearing.

Roberts v. State · filed 2026-04-24

After careful review of the record, we find Roberts failed to set forth any claims showing he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under K.S.A. 60-1507. Thus, we affirm.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion must make more than conclusory contentions and show that an evidentiary basis exists or is available in the record.

Goodpasture v. State · filed 2026-06-26

Goodpasture has the burden to prove an evidentiary hearing is warranted by making more than conclusory contentions and showing that an evidentiary basis exists or is available in the record.

A movant alleging ineffective assistance must show prejudice sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507.

Ahmedin v. State · filed 2016-05-13

In sum, even if we assume that Ahmedin's trial and appellate attorneys performed inadequately in the ways he has alleged in this appeal, Ahmedin has not shown—even to the extent required to obtain an evidentiary hearing—that he was prejudiced from these alleged failings.

At a K.S.A. 60-1507 evidentiary hearing, the district court is the factfinder.

Ayers v. State · filed 2017-03-17

At a 60-1507 evidentiary hearing, the district court is the appropriate factfinder.

After an evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 ineffective-assistance claim, appellate review asks whether substantial competent evidence supports the district court's factual findings and whether those findings support its legal conclusions.

Jones v. State · filed 2017-04-21

When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is brought under K.S.A. 60-1507 and the district court conducts an evidentiary hearing, we must determine whether the district court's factual findings are supported by substantial competent evidence and whether the findings are sufficient to support the district court's conclusions of law.

Section 60-1507(b) provides an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of a postconviction claim.

Wahl v. State · filed 2017-08-25(b)

The purpose of the evidentiary hearing is, in contrast, to determine the merits of the claims. K.S.A. 60-1507(b).

After a full evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion, the district court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues; appellate courts review factual findings for substantial competent evidence and legal conclusions de novo.

Marler v. State · filed 2019-12-20

After a full evidentiary hearing on a 60-1507 motion, as was the case here, the district court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all issues presented. Supreme Court Rule 183(j) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 228). ... 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 court's conclusions of law. Our 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.

Verstraete v. State · filed 2025-01-24

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 § 60-1507 motion, the district court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law on every issue; adopting a party's proposed findings and conclusions satisfies that requirement.

Pruitt v. State · filed 2025-03-28

A district court has three options when handling a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. See State v. Adams, 311 Kan. 569, 577-78, 465 P.3d 176 (2020). The district court held a full evidentiary hearing on Pruitt's motion, so the district court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all issues presented. Supreme Court Rule 183(j) (2025 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 238). The district court did so here by adopting the State's proposed findings and conclusions.

A movant seeking an evidentiary hearing under § 60-1507 must support ineffective-assistance allegations with an evidentiary basis rather than conclusory assertions.

Savery v. State · filed 2020-10-16

In order to obtain an evidentiary hearing on his allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Savery is required to make more than conclusory allegations and must cite an evidentiary basis to support his claims.

Section 60-1507 allows a post-conviction court to hold an evidentiary hearing and develop facts relevant to constitutional claims.

Le Roy St. Clair Brown, Jr. v. Sherman H. Crouse, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary · filed 1968-06-19

Under the Kansas statute and rules, the post conviction court is empowered to hold an evidentiary hearing and to otherwise develop the facts as they relate directly to the constitutional issues there raised.

Section 60-1507(b) does not require an evidentiary hearing when the case files and records conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.

Lile v. McKune · filed 1999-03-17(b)

Under the Kansas statute, no hearing is mandated if the state district court determines that the “files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.”

A section 60-1507 motion based on speculation about potential expert testimony does not require an evidentiary hearing.

Bailey v. State · filed 2022-06-17

Accordingly, his point rests on no more than speculation, and that is insufficient to require the district court to press ahead with an evidentiary hearing on his 60-1507 motion.

A motion under § 60-1507 must concisely state factual grounds for sentence invalidity; a bare assertion of improper juvenile certification does not state a claim for collateral relief.

Decker v. State · filed 1976-04-10

Saying merely that the appellant was improperly certified as an adult in a proceeding in juvenile court does not state any claim of denial of a due process right which could provide a remedy by way of collateral attack under K. S. A. 60-1507. The requirement of the section and of supreme court rule No. 121 for a concise statement of grounds supporting a claim of sentence invalidity is clear. The petitioner did not indicate in his motion the basis for his conelusory and nonfactual statement of “improper certification.”

A request for transcripts to prepare a § 60-1507 motion that does not substantially comply with the required form is not itself a first application for § 60-1507 relief.

State v. McKinney · filed 1985-04-04

Defendant’s motion did not, in any respect, substantially comply with the form mandated by the rule. In addition, the only relief sought was the provision of transcripts to aid in the preparation of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Therefore, we reverse the district court on this point and hold that should defendant desire to file a proper 60-1507 motion, it should be regarded as his first application for relief under this statute.

Section 60-1507 permits a court to treat a mislabeled pro se motion for sentence conversion as a post-conviction motion and to decide a purely legal claim without remand.

State v. Randall · filed 1995-04-21

Mislabeled pro se motions for sentence conversion under 21-4724(d) may be properly viewed as 60-1507 motions. Where district courts overlook the jurisdictional issue entirely, appellate courts can review the merits as if the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under 60-1507. In cases like Randall’s, where the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and where the inmate’s substantive contention raises purely a question of law, a remand is unnecessary.

A mislabeled motion challenging a sentence may be treated as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion when it raises an equal protection claim.

State v. Standifer · filed 1997-10-10

We conclude Standifer s mislabeled motion should be treated as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion and his equal protection argument considered by this court notwithstanding his failure to argue this issue before the district court.

A motion challenging a sentencing guidelines report filed 22 months after the report was issued is treated as a § 60-1507 motion.

State v. Jones · filed 1998-01-09

Because the defendant filed his claim 22 months after KDOC issued its sentencing guidelines report, defendant’s pro se motion is properly considered a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

A § 60-1507 filing is a motion and need not satisfy § 60-1502’s requirement that a petition list earlier civil actions.

Avriett v. State · filed 2003-09-05

In addition, 1502 defines the contents of a pleading titled “petition” rather than “motion.” Only 1501 refers to a “petition” as the pleading that launches the action. A party wishing to begin an action under 1507 files a “motion.”

A motion to correct an illegal sentence may be treated as a § 60-1507 motion so the court can address its merits.

State v. Singleton · filed 2005-01-21

Here, we have a motion to correct an illegal sentence and, under Duke, we are obligated, until otherwise instructed, to treat the present motion as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion and address the merits of tire motion rather than dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Pro se motions under § 60-1507 are liberally construed to include a plea withdrawal claim based on ineffective assistance when the allegations support that claim.

Wilkinson v. State · filed 2008-11-07

Because pro se motions under K.S.A. 60-1507 are liberally construed, ... Wilkinson’s motion should be construed as one to withdraw ... his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to tell him of the manifest-injustice requirement for concurrent sentences.

A movant seeking relief under § 60-1507 must provide an evidentiary basis for the claim; conclusory allegations are insufficient.

Elnicki v. State · filed 2017-12-15

A movant seeking relief under K.S.A. 60-1507 must provide an evidentiary basis in support of his or her argument; conclusory allegations will not suffice.

Section 60-1507 requires a movant to raise claims in the motion to preserve them, but does not require hearing evidence for a claim established by the criminal case record.

Waliallah v. State · filed 2021-02-12

Because K.S.A. 60-1507 has specific pleading requirements, a movant may waive an argument by failing to raise it in his or her motion. See Kelly, 291 Kan. at 564-65; Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1, 25, 192 P.3d 630 (2008). But no authority requires a movant to present evidence in support of a claim at an evidentiary hearing when the movant believes that the claim is established by the transcript and documents filed in his or her criminal case. Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that Waliallah properly raised the issue of due process in his motion for relief, and we will address the issue on the merits.

Section 60-1507 cannot be used as a substitute for a second appeal to relitigate issues already decided on direct appeal.

Kirk v. State · filed 1976-07-23

A proceeding pursuant to 60-1507 may not be utilized as a substitute for a second appeal.

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion may not be used as a substitute for a second appeal.

Adams v. State · filed 2017-07-21

When we consider Adams' arguments on appeal, we can see he tried to use this K.S.A. 60-1507 motion as a substitute for a second appeal in violation of Rule 183(c)(3).

Section 60-1507 permits a trial error affecting constitutional rights to be raised despite its omission from direct appeal when exceptional circumstances excuse that omission.

Estes v. State · filed 1977-01-22

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.

A court may reach the merits of trial-error claims in a § 60-1507 motion when the prisoner took no direct appeal and the ends of justice favor review, even without exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal.

White v. State · filed 1977-07-11

The matters which petitioner here raises may properly be classified as “trial errors.” Our rule 183 (220 Kan. LXVIIl), relating to proceedings under K.S.A. 60-1507 provides in part that: ... Neither of these is a reason which might be classified as an exceptional circumstance; however, in view of the fact that petitioner did not take a direct appeal, we conclude that the ends of justice will best be served by reaching the merits of his motion.

When no direct appeal was taken, a Section 60-1507 motion may raise trial errors affecting constitutional rights if exceptional circumstances excuse the failure to appeal.

Jones v. State · filed 1979-08-17

When no appeal is taken, trial errors affecting constitutional rights may be raised on a 60-1507 motion when there are exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal.

Section 60-1507 ordinarily cannot be used to raise trial errors that could have been raised on direct appeal; a constitutional trial error requires exceptional circumstances excusing that omission.

Miller v. State · filed 2018-05-04

But that's a claim that could have been made in his initial direct appeal, and a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion "ordinarily may not be used as a substitute for direct appeal involving mere trial errors . . . ." Supreme Court Rule 183(c)(3) (2018 Kan. S. Ct. R. 224).

Section 60-1507 generally bars claims of trial error that should have been raised on direct appeal unless an intervening change in law or ineffective assistance of counsel supplies exceptional circumstances.

Phillips v. State · filed 2018-11-21

Generally, trial errors must be raised on direct appellate review and are not grounds for reversing a conviction under K.S.A. 60-1507. ... Even so, a movant may obtain review of trial errors by showing exceptional circumstances. This means that there was an intervening change in the law that prevented the trial error from being raised on direct appeal or the movant had ineffective assistance of counsel.

Section 60-1507 requires exceptional circumstances to review trial error claims that could have been raised on direct appeal.

Baskin v. State · filed 2022-11-23

In particular, Baskin fails to show exceptional circumstances to justify addressing the claims of trial error by way of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

Section 60-1507 does not permit a movant to challenge potential trial errors already reviewed on direct appeal by recasting them as judicial bias.

Breitenbach v. State · filed 2024-05-24

Judge Kisner's rulings concerning DNA were potential trial errors for review in Breitenbach's direct appeal and are not properly challenged in a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion generally cannot substitute for a direct appeal of trial errors, but a movant may raise a constitutional trial error if exceptional circumstances excuse the failure to appeal.

Stewart v. State · filed 2024-07-12

Supreme Court Rule 183(c)(3) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 240) generally prohibits a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion from be used "as a substitute for direct appeal involving mere trial errors." There is one exception to this rule, which allows a movant to raise trial errors affecting constitutional rights even though that error could have been raised in a direct appeal if "exceptional circumstances excuse the failure to appeal." Supreme Court Rule 183(c)(3) (2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 241).

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion cannot be used to review trial errors raised or available on direct appeal unless the movant shows a constitutional violation and exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal.

State v. Alford · filed 2024-07-12

It is well settled that a movant may not use a K.S.A. 60-1507 proceeding as a vehicle for obtaining review of mere trial errors that could have been raised on direct appeal unless the trial error affects the movant's constitutional rights and the movant demonstrates exceptional circumstances excusing the failure to appeal.

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion generally cannot raise a trial error that should have been raised on direct appeal unless the error affects constitutional rights and exceptional circumstances excuse the omission.

Valentine v. State · filed 2024-08-16

A K.S.A. 60-1507 motion generally cannot be used to assert trial errors that should have been raised on direct appeal. Movants may raise trial errors affecting constitutional rights in a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion if the failure to raise the errors on direct appeal is excused by exceptional circumstances. State v. Brown, 318 Kan. 446, 448-49, 543 P.3d 1149 (2024); Supreme Court Rule 183(c)(3). Exceptional circumstances can include ineffective assistance of counsel. Dawson v. State, 310 Kan. 26, 36-37, 444 P.3d 974 (2019). However, Valentine does not assert exceptional circumstances in his K.S.A. 60- 1507 motion that justify raising an alleged trial error. Therefore, we will not consider this issue.

A movant may raise a trial error affecting constitutional rights under K.S.A. 60-1507 only by showing exceptional circumstances that excuse the failure to raise it on direct appeal.

Kanatzar v. State · filed 2025-08-29

But those trial errors that affect a movant's constitutional rights may be raised in a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion provided the movant can articulate exceptional circumstances which excuse their failure to raise the issue as part of their direct appeal.

Section 60-1507(d) permits an appeal from an order denying a motion to collaterally attack a sentence, even when the underlying conviction followed a nolo contendere plea.

Esters v. State · filed 1977-07-29(d)

Thus, this court has appellate jurisdiction as to the lower court's ruling on defendant's 60-1507 motion, and it is upon that aspect of this appeal that we take jurisdiction.

Section 60-1507 proceedings are civil, so the excusable neglect provision governing civil appeals applies to appeals from orders denying relief.

Robinson v. State · filed 1989-01-27

Since 60-2103(a) is a rule of civil appellate procedure, it follows from the dichotomy of civil and criminal proceedings and the classification of 1507 proceedings as civil proceedings that the “excusable neglect” provision of60-2103(a) applies to appeals from orders denying relief under 60-1507.

Section 60-1507(d) permits an appeal from an order dismissing a prisoner’s motion for post-conviction relief.

McColpin v. Paul W. Clark, District Court Judge · filed 1992-12-01(d)

The district court observed that McColpin had an access of appeal from Judge Clark's order of dismissal pursuant to Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-1507(d). We agree.

On appeal from a § 60-1507 ruling on ineffective assistance of counsel, the performance and prejudice components receive de novo review as mixed questions of law and fact.

Cellier v. State · filed 2001-01-26

We do not reweigh the testimony or the credibility of witnesses. At the same time, our review of the performance and prejudice components remains de novo as mixed questions of law and fact.

On appeal from a § 60-1507 ruling, the court reviews whether the factual findings have substantial competent evidentiary support and support the conclusions of law.

Lumley v. State · filed 2001-11-02

The standard of review for an appeal of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is for the appellate court to determine whether the factual findings of the court are supported by substantial competent evidence and whether those findings are sufficient to support its conclusions of law.

An appeal from the denial of a § 60-1507 motion may be filed out of time when court-appointed counsel fails to inform the movant of the denial and the right to appeal.

Brown v. State · filed 2004-12-03(d)

Most important, he failed to notify his client of the denial of the 1507 motion and of Brown’s right to appeal by certain deadlines. Counsel’s failure to advise his client of the right to appeal — for over 2 years — cannot even meet the most minimal of standards, and the appeal must be allowed.

After an evidentiary hearing on a Section 60-1507 motion, an appellate court reviews whether substantial competent evidence supports the factual findings and whether those findings support the legal conclusions.

State v. Lewis · filed 2003-10-10

Because the district court held an evidentiary hearing on Lewis’ motion, filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507, “[t]he standard of review ... is for the appellate court to determine whether the factual findings of the court are supported by substantial competent evidence and whether those findings are sufficient to support its conclusions of law. [Citation omitted.]”

Section 60-1507 does not permit appellate courts to review decisions on postconviction motions for abuse of discretion.

Bellamy v. State · filed 2007-12-07(b)

We note, for the purposes of clarity, that the language of K.S.A. 60-1507 controls the standard of review rather than Rule 183(h). The language of K.S.A. 60-1507 does not support the conclusion that appellate courts may apply an abuse of discretion standard. Thus, we disapprove any language to the contrary in previous opinions applying an abuse of discretion standard to a district court’s decision on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Abuse of discretion is no longer recognized as a standard for reviewing the results of 60-1507 motions.

When the State appeals a grant of relief under § 60-1507, appellate courts review the district court’s factual findings for substantial competent evidence and whether those findings support its legal conclusions.

McHenry v. State · filed 2008-02-29

Generally, when a defendant appeals from the denial of a 60-1507 motion, the appellate court determines whether the factual findings of the district court are supported by substantial competent evidence, and whether those findings are sufficient to support its conclusions of law. ... We find that this same standard of review applies when the 60-1507 motion is granted and the State appeals.

Section 60-1507(d) permits the State to appeal an order granting post-conviction relief as a final judgment in a civil proceeding.

Moll v. State · filed 2009-04-10(d)

We hold that the State may appeal an unfavorable disposition of a 60-1507 motion in the same manner as a final judgment in a civil proceeding.

When a post-sentencing plea withdrawal motion is also treated as a Section 60-1507 motion and summarily denied, appellate review is de novo.

State v. Atteberry · filed 2010-09-03

Here, the trial court held that Atteberry “has not established entitlement to relief under K.S.A. 22-3210(d) or under K.S.A. 60-1507.” Citing K.S.A. 60-1507, K.S.A. 22-4506(b), and Supreme Court Rule 183(h) (2009 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 251), the trial court further held that the motions and files of Atteberry’s case conclusively established no basis upon which relief could be granted. Thus, the court concluded it could summarily deny Atteberiy’s motions without appointing counsel, providing for Atteberry’s presence, or conducting an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, this court has de novo review.

A denial of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion based solely on legal arguments and the case file receives independent appellate review without deference to the district court.

Bell v. State · filed 2011-09-16

But our Supreme Court has noted that when the district court denies a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion based solely on legal arguments made to it and a review of the case file, the appellate court is in as good a position to review the matter as the trial court was so that the review should be an independent one, without any required deference to the trial court.

After an evidentiary hearing, appellate review of a denial of relief under § 60-1507 asks whether substantial competent evidence supports the district court’s factual findings and whether those findings support its legal conclusions.

Bejarano v. State · filed 2015-10-23

When the district court denies a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion after conducting an evidentiary hearing, we review whether the district court's factual findings are supported by substantial competent evidence and whether those findings are sufficient to support the court's conclusions of law.

After an evidentiary hearing on a § 60-1507 motion, factual findings are reviewed for substantial competent evidence and legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.

Elston v. State · filed 2015-12-23

Where the district court has conducted an evidentiary hearing on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, we review the underlying factual findings for support by substantial competent evidence and the legal conclusions based on those facts are reviewed de novo.

A denial of a § 60-1507 motion after a preliminary hearing, based only on the motion, files, and records, is reviewed de novo on appeal.

Joeckel v. State · filed 2016-02-26

When the district court denies a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion based only on the motion, 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. Grossman v. State, 300 Kan. 1058, 1061, 337 P.3d 687 (2014). Accordingly, our standard of review is de novo.

Denial of a § 60-1507 motion without an evidentiary hearing receives unlimited appellate review.

Robinson v. State · filed 2016-03-25

If a district court dismisses a 60-1507 motion on the papers without a hearing, the appellate court reviews that determination anew and without any deference. 285 Kan. at 354. Likewise, if the district court holds a nonevidentiary hearing and then denies the motion, the reviewing court affords the ruling no deference. Barr v. State, 287 Kan. 190, 196, 196 P.3d 357 (2008). Since the district court did not hear testimony or receive other evidence regarding Robinson's motion, we exercise unlimited review.