Lynch v. State

Supreme Court of Kansas

Lynch v. State

509 P.2d 1152, 212 Kan. 177

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 12, 1973

DocketNo. 46,927

StatusPublished

This text of 509 P.2d 1152 (Lynch 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

Lynch v. State, 509 P.2d 1152, 212 Kan. 177 (kan 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this proceeding under K. S. A. 60-1507, the petitioner claims: (1) The judgment imposing an habitual criminal sentence was void where one of two prior convictions later was held to have been improperly used against him; (2) the correction of the sentence to change it to the proper term was also void and in violation of the bill of rights; and (3) he is entitled to have the sentence vacated or further modified because the erroneous sentence deprived him of timely opportunity to appear for parole consideration.

These claims must be disposed of in the light of our decisions in Roberts v. State, 197 Kan. 687, 421 P. 2d 48; Bridges v. State, 197 Kan. 704, 421 P. 2d 45; State v. Fountaine, 199 Kan. 434, 430 P. 2d 235; Jackson v. State, 204 Kan. 841, 466 P. 2d 305; State v. Smith, 206 Kan. 744, 481 P. 2d 995; and Daegele v. State, 211 Kan. 612, 506 P. 2d 1134. The trial court was correct in denying the petitioner’s claims. There was no denial of due process, no invasion of any constitutional right and no double jeopardy.

The original sentence was not void but was subject to modification, the revised sentence of not more than twenty years was a lesser sentence than that of not less than fifteen years, and was in every respect lawful and proper.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

In this proceeding under K. S. A. 60-1507, the petitioner claims: (1) The judgment imposing an habitual criminal sentence was void where one of two prior convictions later was held to have been improperly used against him; (2) the correction of the sentence to change it to the proper term was also void and in violation of the bill of rights; and (3) he is entitled to have the sentence vacated or further modified because the erroneous sentence deprived him of timely opportunity to appear for parole consideration.

These claims must be disposed of in the light of our decisions in Roberts v. State, 197 Kan. 687, 421 P. 2d 48; Bridges v. State, 197 Kan. 704, 421 P. 2d 45; State v. Fountaine, 199 Kan. 434, 430 P. 2d 235; Jackson v. State, 204 Kan. 841, 466 P. 2d 305; State v. Smith, 206 Kan. 744, 481 P. 2d 995; and Daegele v. State, 211 Kan. 612, 506 P. 2d 1134. The trial court was correct in denying the petitioner’s claims. There was no denial of due process, no invasion of any constitutional right and no double jeopardy.

The original sentence was not void but was subject to modification, the revised sentence of not more than twenty years was a lesser sentence than that of not less than fifteen years, and was in every respect lawful and proper.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 P.2d 1152, 212 Kan. 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-state-kan-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack