Title: Toland v. State

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

200 Kan. 184 (1967)
434 P.2d 550
WAYNE TOLAND, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 45,055

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 9, 1967.
L.J. Grant, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant. Leland E. Nordling, of Hugoton, also filed a brief for appellant.
Paul A. Wolf, County Attorney, argued the cause and Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FROMME, J.:
The petitioner Wayne Toland is presently serving a sentence in the Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas. He entered voluntary pleas of guilty to grand larceny and burglary in the second degree on September 2, 1965. Petitioner's motion to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentences was presented and denied by the trial court on June 30, 1966. Appeal is taken from the order denying the motion to vacate.
The grounds on which petitioner based his motion were (1) "incompetent and ineffective assistance of counsel," (2) "I was forced through my attorney and my lack of knowledge to be a witness against myself" and (3) "Illegal search warrant constituted illegal seizure" (of evidence).
The records abstracted from Stevens county, Kansas, establish that petitioner was arrested on the charges of grand larceny and burglary in the second degree and was taken before the county court. Thereupon the following proceedings, as recorded in the journal entry of that court, transpired:
The journal of the district court of that county records the following proceedings:
Thereupon petitioner was sentenced from five to ten years for second degree burglary, to not more than five years for grand larceny (K.S.A. 21-524) and both sentences were made to run concurrently.
Petitioner was represented by appointed counsel, D.O. Concannon, at both the preliminary hearing and at the arraignment and sentencing proceedings in the district court. Petitioner was given the right of allocution after he entered a plea of guilty and he replied he knew of no reason why sentence should not be pronounced.
On the hearing of petitioner's motion to vacate judgment and sentences the trial court made specific findings based on the records as follows:
The record indicates the petitioner waived a preliminary hearing and in later proceedings in the district court waived arraignment and entered a voluntary plea of guilty to the charges. The record establishes that petitioner was represented by appointed counsel who was present during both proceedings. When petitioner was tendered a right of allocution petitioner stated he knew of no reason why sentence should not be pronounced. It must be presumed he was fully and fairly represented by counsel in all matters before the court. (Kelly v. State, 196 Kan. 428, 411 P.2d 611; Call v. State, 195 Kan. 688, 408 P.2d 668, cert. den., 384 U.S. 957, 16 L. Ed. 2d 552, 86 S. Ct. 1581.) There is nothing in the record, including the motion to vacate, to indicate otherwise.
The burden is on the appellant-petitioner to show the representation by his attorney was so ineffectual and inadequate as to amount to denial of competent counsel. (State v. Richardson, 194 Kan. 471, 487, 399 P.2d 799.)
The record refutes petitioner's statement that he was forced to be a witness against himself for he did not testify at the preliminary proceeding or on his arraignment and sentencing. He waived preliminary hearing and entered a plea of guilty to the charges. Any hearing conducted on petitioner's application for probation was no part of the proceedings upon which the judgment and sentence were entered.
The final ground of petitioner's motion would seem to be that evidence against him was obtained by illegal search and seizure. He attacks the sufficiency of the description of the premises to be searched and the property to be seized as identified in the papers upon which a search warrant was issued by the county judge.
We have repeatedly held that when judgment and sentence are entered upon a voluntary plea of guilty there can be no review *187 of the sufficiency of the evidence. This evidence was not used and any question of admissibility is waived by entry of a guilty plea. (Dexter v. Crouse, 192 Kan. 151, 386 P.2d 263; Miller v. Hudspeth, 164 Kan. 688, 192 P.2d 147; McCall v. State, 196 Kan. 411, 414, 411 P.2d 647.)
The petitioner contends on appeal, for the first time, that he was denied due process of law by the court's failure to require a transcript of the proceedings on arraignment and sentencing.
This ground was not contained in the motion to vacate judgment and sentence. It was not presented to or passed upon by the lower court. Under such circumstances an appellate court will not consider the question for the first time. (Tate v. State, 196 Kan. 435, 411 P.2d 661; Fairbanks v. State, 196 Kan. 650, 413 P.2d 985.)
The judgment is affirmed.