Case Title: Johnson v. State

Citation: 203 Kan. 947, 457 P.2d 181

Docket Number: 45,653

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1969-07-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
203 Kan. 947 (1969)
457 P.2d 181
DALE RALPH JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 45,653

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 17, 1969.
Gaylord Reichart, of Burlington, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Edward G. Collister, Jr., assistant attorney general, argued the cause and Kent Frizzell, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FATZER, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the Osage district court denying appellant's motion initiated pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507, to vacate the judgment and sentence imposed by that court.
The district court granted the appellant an evidentiary hearing at which the appellant and the state offered evidence. The district court made comprehensive and detailed findings of fact, and the story of this proceeding is best told by quoting in full those findings:
"1. For newly discovered evidence.
The appellant contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel both during and after his trial in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. He first argues counsel was not prepared to present his case the day of the trial, and the district court erred in overruling his request for a continuance.
With respect to the denial of appellant's requested continuance, there is nothing in the record to indicate its denial resulted in any prejudice to his substantial rights. The granting or denial of a continuance in a criminal prosecution is largely within the sound discretion of the district court and its ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that there has been an abuse of discretion which has prejudiced the defendant's substantial rights. (State v. Patterson, 200 Kan. 176, 434 P.2d 808; State v. Adamson, 197 Kan. 486, 419 P.2d 860; State v. Brown, 193 Kan. 654, 396 P.2d 401; State v. Hickock & Smith, 188 Kan. 473, 363 P.2d 541, appeal dismissed 373 U.S. 544, 10 L. Ed. 2d 688, 83 S. Ct. 1545.)
The contention that appellant's attorney was not prepared for trial is not supported by the record. On the contrary, it clearly shows that counsel diligently prepared the appellant's case and adequately represented him at all times in the district court. Mr. Burns was appointed to represent the appellant nine days before the trial and conferred with him many times. He also conferred with Mr. Heizer, the appellant's first appointed counsel, while Heizer was confined in the hospital in Topeka. Mr. Burns interviewed all the witnesses involved in the case, and investigated matters pertaining to the charge prior to the trial.
The rule of adequate representation of counsel is stated in Call *952 v. State, 195 Kan. 688, 408 P.2d 668, cert. den. 384 U.S. 957, 16 L. Ed. 2d 552, 86 S. Ct. 1581, as follows:
..............
See, also, Ray v. State, 202 Kan. 144, 446 P.2d 762.
The record clearly indicates that Mr. Burns diligently represented the interests of the appellant. This is confirmed by the testimony of Mr. Burns and Mr. Heizer who testified at the 1507 hearing, and no showing has been made by the appellant why the district court's determination on the point is erroneous. Effective assistance of counsel cannot be equated with successful assistance of counsel. We conclude the appellant was not denied his right to counsel under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The appellant next contends his counsel conspired to deny him his right to appeal following his conviction in the district court. The findings of the district court are that on November 3, 1966, Mr. Burns visited the appellant at the state penitentiary to discuss the advisability of abandoning his appeal to the supreme court. Mr. Burns advised appellant that if he wanted to abandon his appeal, to sign the statement set forth in the district court's findings No. 11. The appellant stated he wanted to abandon the appeal and try for clemency because he was advised by the pardon attorney that the governor would not entertain an application for clemency while an appeal was pending.
There is absolutely no evidence the appellant was coerced into signing the statement and the district court found he freely and voluntarily signed the same, and that it was knowingly and understandably executed. Furthermore, the appellant testified at the 1507 hearing that he had no evidence or knowledge that Mr. Burns conspired to deny him his right to perfect his appeal. Hence, his contention cannot be sustained.
The record is undisputed that the clerk of the district court was derelict in his duty in failing to transmit the appellant's timely executed notice of appeal to the clerk of this court. K.S.A. 62-1724 *953 (a) requires that a certified copy of the notice of appeal with proof of service and a certified copy of the journal entry of conviction be sent by the clerk of the district court to the clerk of the supreme court within ten days after the notice of appeal is filed. There was nothing more required to be done by the appellant with respect to perfecting his appeal, and no failure of officers to do their duty can deprive him of that statutory right. (Cochran v. Amrine, 155 Kan. 777, 130 P.2d 605.) However, regardless of what may have occurred in the appeal procedure, the failure to timely certify the appellant's notice of appeal to the clerk of this court, under the facts and circumstances here presented, does not affect the validity of his conviction. As indicated, and on November 3, 1966, the appellant freely and voluntarily executed his motion to dismiss his appeal. In addition, and at the close of the evidentiary hearing on his 1507 motion, the district court stated it would permit the appellant to withdraw his 1507 motion, and his motion of abandonment of his appeal of November 3, 1966, and would direct that the notice of appeal from his conviction be certified to the supreme court for filing. However, and in open court, the appellant declined the district court's offer and refused to appeal.
We have fully reviewed the record and the appellant has failed to affirmatively make it appear the district court committed any error in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we conclude the appellant is not entitled to have his sentence vacated.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.