Taylor v. State

Supreme Court of Kansas

Taylor v. State

490 P.2d 363, 208 Kan. 189

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedNovember 6, 1971

DocketNo. 46,403

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 490 P.2d 363 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. State, 490 P.2d 363, 208 Kan. 189 (kan 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

O’Connor, J.:

This is an appeal from an order denying relief in a K. S. A. 60-1507 proceeding wherein petitioner, after pleading guilty to the offense of murder in the first degree, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The district court granted a full evidentiary hearing and, with respect to the two grounds raised, found in substance: (1) at the time the plea of guilty was entered and accepted there was nothing to suggest to the court or counsel that appointment of a commission under K. S. A. 62-1531 was necessary to determine petitioner’s sanity, and (2) counsel was not derelict in his duties in failing to request the appointment of a commission, and petitioner was accorded diligent and adequate representation by counsel in accordance with due process of law.

Disposition of this case is controlled by what was said in Van Dusen v. State, 197 Kan. 718, 421 P. 2d 197; State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4, 422 P. 2d 898; and State v. Brown, 204 Kan. 430, 464 P. 2d 161. The district court’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

O’Connor, J.:

This is an appeal from an order denying relief in a K. S. A. 60-1507 proceeding wherein petitioner, after pleading guilty to the offense of murder in the first degree, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The district court granted a full evidentiary hearing and, with respect to the two grounds raised, found in substance: (1) at the time the plea of guilty was entered and accepted there was nothing to suggest to the court or counsel that appointment of a commission under K. S. A. 62-1531 was necessary to determine petitioner’s sanity, and (2) counsel was not derelict in his duties in failing to request the appointment of a commission, and petitioner was accorded diligent and adequate representation by counsel in accordance with due process of law.

Disposition of this case is controlled by what was said in Van Dusen v. State, 197 Kan. 718, 421 P. 2d 197; State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4, 422 P. 2d 898; and State v. Brown, 204 Kan. 430, 464 P. 2d 161. The district court’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 P.2d 363, 208 Kan. 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-kan-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack