Potts v. State

Supreme Court of Kansas

Potts v. State

520 P.2d 1259, 214 Kan. 369

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 6, 1974

Docket47,191

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 520 P.2d 1259 (Potts 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

Potts v. State, 520 P.2d 1259, 214 Kan. 369 (kan 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from an order summarily denying postconviction relief.

Appellant Max Leroy Potts was convicted by a jury of the offense of robbery in the first degree. He was sentenced under the habitual criminal act. Upon direct appeal his conviction was upheld (State v. Potts, 205 Kan. 47, 468 P. 2d 78).

Essentially, in his motion for relief under K. S. A. 60-1507 appellant alleges several witnesses against him committed perjury and he was not guilty of the offense charged. The motion stated no facts to support his conclusion and identified no witnesses upon which he relies for proof. The trial court examined the records and files in the case and denied tire motion without requiring appellant’s appearance or the appointment of counsel.

Conclusory allegations alone are insufficient to present a justiciable issue under 60-1507; moreover, this proceeding was never designed to supply a forum in which to retry guilt or innocence of one convicted of crime nor to have a second appeal. The trial court ruled correctly and its judgment is approved.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from an order summarily denying postconviction relief.

Appellant Max Leroy Potts was convicted by a jury of the offense of robbery in the first degree. He was sentenced under the habitual criminal act. Upon direct appeal his conviction was upheld (State v. Potts, 205 Kan. 47, 468 P. 2d 78).

Essentially, in his motion for relief under K. S. A. 60-1507 appellant alleges several witnesses against him committed perjury and he was not guilty of the offense charged. The motion stated no facts to support his conclusion and identified no witnesses upon which he relies for proof. The trial court examined the records and files in the case and denied tire motion without requiring appellant’s appearance or the appointment of counsel.

Conclusory allegations alone are insufficient to present a justiciable issue under 60-1507; moreover, this proceeding was never designed to supply a forum in which to retry guilt or innocence of one convicted of crime nor to have a second appeal. The trial court ruled correctly and its judgment is approved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 P.2d 1259, 214 Kan. 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potts-v-state-kan-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack