Kirk v. State

Supreme Court of Kansas

Kirk v. State

552 P.2d 633, 220 Kan. 278

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 23, 1976

Docket47,993

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 552 P.2d 633 (Kirk 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

Kirk v. State, 552 P.2d 633, 220 Kan. 278 (kan 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Petitioner, Edward L. Kirk, appeals from a ruling of the trial court denying relief in proceedings under K. S. A. 60-1507.

In 1970 petitioner was convicted of first degree burglary and larceny. This conviction was affirmed in State v. Kirk, 208 Kan. 645, 493 P. 2d 233. On October 2, 1974, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 60-1507. The motion failed to allege unusual circumstances or an intervening change in the law which would justify reconsideration of points raised in petitioner’s direct appeal. The motion was overruled without an evidentiary hearing and an appeal was taken. While the appeal was pending court-appointed counsel filed a motion for a rehearing. This motion was likewise denied and this appeal from both rulings followed.

On appeal petitioner specifies several points, but briefs only two. The other points must be deemed abandoned. (State, ex rel., v. Unified School District, 218 Kan. 47, 542 P. 2d 664.) The points argued by petitioner relate to his alibi defense and the conduct of his attorney. Roth points were considered and resolved by this court in State v. Kirk, supra. A proceeding pursuant to 60-1507 may not be utilized as a substitute for a second appeal. (Supreme Court Rule No. 121 [c] [3], 214 Kan. xxxviii; Tillman v. State, 215 Kan. 365, 524 P. 2d 772.)

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

Petitioner, Edward L. Kirk, appeals from a ruling of the trial court denying relief in proceedings under K. S. A. 60-1507.

In 1970 petitioner was convicted of first degree burglary and larceny. This conviction was affirmed in State v. Kirk, 208 Kan. 645, 493 P. 2d 233. On October 2, 1974, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 60-1507. The motion failed to allege unusual circumstances or an intervening change in the law which would justify reconsideration of points raised in petitioner’s direct appeal. The motion was overruled without an evidentiary hearing and an appeal was taken. While the appeal was pending court-appointed counsel filed a motion for a rehearing. This motion was likewise denied and this appeal from both rulings followed.

On appeal petitioner specifies several points, but briefs only two. The other points must be deemed abandoned. (State, ex rel., v. Unified School District, 218 Kan. 47, 542 P. 2d 664.) The points argued by petitioner relate to his alibi defense and the conduct of his attorney. Roth points were considered and resolved by this court in State v. Kirk, supra. A proceeding pursuant to 60-1507 may not be utilized as a substitute for a second appeal. (Supreme Court Rule No. 121 [c] [3], 214 Kan. xxxviii; Tillman v. State, 215 Kan. 365, 524 P. 2d 772.)

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 P.2d 633, 220 Kan. 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirk-v-state-kan-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack