Kinnell v. State

Supreme Court of Kansas

Kinnell v. State

504 P.2d 161, 210 Kan. 785

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 9, 1972

DocketNo. 46,789

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 504 P.2d 161 (Kinnell 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

Kinnell v. State, 504 P.2d 161, 210 Kan. 785 (kan 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal by the petitioner in a proceeding instituted pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1507 from an order of the sentencing court dismissing the petition without a hearing and without appointing counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner’s original conviction in November, 1963, for the offenses of kidnapping in the first degree and forcible rape was affirmed on appeal in State v. Kinnell, 197 Kan. 456, 419 P. 2d 870.

The motion here presented is the petitioner’s fourth attack upon his sentence under 60-1507, supra. His first motion was dismissed because his direct appeal to this Court was still pending. His second was dismissed by the trial court and no appeal was taken. A third motion was filed in 1968 and again denied. On appeal it was affirmed in Kinnell v. State, 205 Kan. 445, 469 P. 2d 348.

The trial court in its memorandum noted the petitioner had filed at least fifteen petitions for writs of habeas corpus and other relief in the federal courts.

The motion presently asserted by the petitioner to vacate his sentence under 60-1507, supra, is an abuse of remedy and was properly dismissed. (Robinson v. State, 209 Kan. 667, 498 P. 2d 35.)

The judgment of the lower court dismissing the proceeding is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal by the petitioner in a proceeding instituted pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1507 from an order of the sentencing court dismissing the petition without a hearing and without appointing counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner’s original conviction in November, 1963, for the offenses of kidnapping in the first degree and forcible rape was affirmed on appeal in State v. Kinnell, 197 Kan. 456, 419 P. 2d 870.

The motion here presented is the petitioner’s fourth attack upon his sentence under 60-1507, supra. His first motion was dismissed because his direct appeal to this Court was still pending. His second was dismissed by the trial court and no appeal was taken. A third motion was filed in 1968 and again denied. On appeal it was affirmed in Kinnell v. State, 205 Kan. 445, 469 P. 2d 348.

The trial court in its memorandum noted the petitioner had filed at least fifteen petitions for writs of habeas corpus and other relief in the federal courts.

The motion presently asserted by the petitioner to vacate his sentence under 60-1507, supra, is an abuse of remedy and was properly dismissed. (Robinson v. State, 209 Kan. 667, 498 P. 2d 35.)

The judgment of the lower court dismissing the proceeding is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 P.2d 161, 210 Kan. 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinnell-v-state-kan-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack