Title: Chance v. State

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

195 Kan. 711 (1965)
408 P.2d 677
LANGDON WOODS CHANCE, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 44,317

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 11, 1965.
Harry C. Blaker, of Pleasanton, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellant.
Leighton A. Fossey, County Attorney, argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General, and Richard H. Seaton, Assistant Attorney General, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, C.J.:
This is an appeal from an order and judgment of the district court of Linn County which, after a full and complete evidentiary hearing in precise accord with the requirements of K.S.A. 60-1507 at which petitioner was produced and present in person, denied petitioner's motion to vacate and set aside a prior judgment and sentence imposed by that court in a criminal action. The record discloses petitioner was represented by competent court-appointed counsel throughout all vital stages of the proceedings herein involved.
The trial court's decision with respect to the questions presented by the appeal is reflected in a well-written memorandum decision which sets forth the decisive and controlling facts at length, out-lines the issues involved, and states the reasons for its decision and the judgment rendered in such manner and form it can well be incorporated in and made a part of the opinion of an appellate court *712 For these reasons, and others to be presently disclosed, we are disposed to quote such memorandum decision in toto. It reads:
"THE MEMORANDUM, OF THE TRIAL COURT.
"3. Petitioner raises the following points:
"FINDINGS OF FACT
"5. The court finds the facts to be as follows:
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After a careful and extended analysis of the foregoing memorandum decision we are convinced it (1) contains accurate factual conclusions supported by the record; (2) cites the law when viewed in the light of the existing facts; (3) assigns sound and controlling reasons for denying petitioner's motion to vacate and set aside the prior judgment and sentence imposed against him in the Linn County criminal action; and (4) fully and completely answers all *717 questions raised, and arguments advanced with respect thereto, by the parties on appellate review regarding the propriety of the ruling on such motion.
In view of the foregoing conclusions we know of no sound reason why our reports should be burdened with extended discussion and consideration of contentions which have already been correctly disposed of by the trial court through the medium of a comprehensive decision such as has been heretofore fully quoted. Therefore we adopt such decision and, based on what is stated and held therein, hold that under the confronting facts and circumstances the district court's action in denying petitioner's motion to vacate and set aside his criminal judgment and sentence must be upheld.
The judgment is affirmed.