Bloomer v. State

Supreme Court of Kansas

Bloomer v. State

533 P.2d 278, 216 Kan. 469, 1975 Kan. LEXIS 353

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 1, 1975

DocketNo. 47,573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 533 P.2d 278 (Bloomer v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bloomer v. State, 533 P.2d 278, 216 Kan. 469, 1975 Kan. LEXIS 353 (kan 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion for release from custody pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1507.

Appellant stands convicted of assault with felonious intent and murder in the second degree. His first trial was for murder in the first degree and assault with felonious intent. The verdict was guilty on both counts. Upon appeal the assault conviction was affirmed, but a new trial was ordered on the murder charge. (State v. Bloomer, 192 Kan. 581, 390 P. 2d 29.) In the second trial the verdict was murder in the second degree. Upon appeal this conviction was affirmed. (State v. Bloomer, 197 Kan. 668, 421 P. 2d 58.)

Appellant then first sought relief under K. S. A. 60-1507, alleging he was denied counsel of his own choice from arrest to arraignment; that he was interrogated in the absence of counsel and the state manufactured a confession during the interrogation which was used against him in the trial. The trial court denied this motion stating that all the grounds alleged had been raised in his second direct appeal. Appellant did not appeal.

Later the present motion was filed, claiming error in the admission of evidence of a prior conviction during the second trial. The evidence was inadmissible, he says, because he did not have counsel at the time of the prior conviction, and because he had not put his character in issue.’ In denying the motion the trial court calls attention to the fact that the only evidence of the prior conviction was given by appellant’s own testimony on direct examination, and by his mother testifying on his behalf. Appellant cannot predicate error on actions taken by him in his own defense. (State v. Grider, 206 Kan. 537, 479 P. 2d 818; State v. Phippen, 208 Kan. 962, 494 P. 2d 1137.)

[470]*470The remaining issue raised by appellant goes to the lack of counsel at his preliminary hearing. This issue was fully considered by this court in the second direct appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from a denial of a motion for release from custody pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1507.

Appellant stands convicted of assault with felonious intent and murder in the second degree. His first trial was for murder in the first degree and assault with felonious intent. The verdict was guilty on both counts. Upon appeal the assault conviction was affirmed, but a new trial was ordered on the murder charge. (State v. Bloomer, 192 Kan. 581, 390 P. 2d 29.) In the second trial the verdict was murder in the second degree. Upon appeal this conviction was affirmed. (State v. Bloomer, 197 Kan. 668, 421 P. 2d 58.)

Appellant then first sought relief under K. S. A. 60-1507, alleging he was denied counsel of his own choice from arrest to arraignment; that he was interrogated in the absence of counsel and the state manufactured a confession during the interrogation which was used against him in the trial. The trial court denied this motion stating that all the grounds alleged had been raised in his second direct appeal. Appellant did not appeal.

Later the present motion was filed, claiming error in the admission of evidence of a prior conviction during the second trial. The evidence was inadmissible, he says, because he did not have counsel at the time of the prior conviction, and because he had not put his character in issue.’ In denying the motion the trial court calls attention to the fact that the only evidence of the prior conviction was given by appellant’s own testimony on direct examination, and by his mother testifying on his behalf. Appellant cannot predicate error on actions taken by him in his own defense. (State v. Grider, 206 Kan. 537, 479 P. 2d 818; State v. Phippen, 208 Kan. 962, 494 P. 2d 1137.)

[470]*470The remaining issue raised by appellant goes to the lack of counsel at his preliminary hearing. This issue was fully considered by this court in the second direct appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 P.2d 278, 216 Kan. 469, 1975 Kan. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloomer-v-state-kan-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack