Title: Tipton v. State

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

194 Kan. 705 (1965)
402 P.2d 310
RAY R. TIPTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 43,997

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 15, 1965.
Wilson E. Speer, of Olathe, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellant.
Hugh H. Kreamer, County Attorney, argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General, was with him on the briefs for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PARKER, C.J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Johnson County, Kansas, denying appellant's motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 to vacate, set aside or correct a prior judgment and sentence of that court in a criminal action.
During the course of the proceeding appellant was given a full and complete hearing. He was present in person and represented by court-appointed counsel at all times and was given an opportunity to bring in all witnesses he desired to testify in his behalf. In fact the record discloses the testimony of the witnesses consists of one hundred ninety-three pages.
At the close of the hearing the trial court made extensive and comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law which, except for some differences between the parties as to the sufficiency *706 of the evidence sustaining them, disclose the informative facts required to give readers of this opinion a full and complete understanding of the factual picture and issues on which contentions made by the parties in this case must stand or fall. Therefore we quote at length from the journal entry.
"FINDINGS OF FACT"
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW"
"Dated this 13th day of March, 1964."
Following the adverse findings, conclusions and judgment, heretofore set forth at length, appellant's motions to amend the trial court's findings of fact and for a new trial on all issues were denied. Thereafter he gave notice of his appeal from the court's decision and judgment of March 13, 1964. Later, and on March 27, 1964, his motions for free records and appointment of counsel for purposes of review of the judgment on appeal were overruled, without prejudice to future action, and, at the same time, Wilson E. Speer, court-appointed counsel, who had represented appellant in the district court throughout the entire (60-1507) proceeding, was relieved from further appointment in the case.
Subsequently, and on June 15, 1964, the district court made an order authorizing appellant to proceed in the case on appeal in forma pauperis, pursuant to Rule 6(m) of this court. Still later, and on October 22, 1964, such court, on its own motion, set aside its prior ruling denying appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and, pursuant to this court's Rule 121(m), sustained appellant's prior motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. On the same day the court appointed Wilson E. Speer as counsel for appellant for purposes of prosecuting his appeal from its order denying him relief under 60-1507, supra. Mr. Speer fulfilled this obligation by filing a proper record and brief and by orally arguing the cause on the date appellant's appeal was heard by this court on its merits.
The nature of the grounds on which appellant based his right for relief in his motion under 60-1507, supra, appear from the heretofore quoted findings and conclusions of the trial court and need not be labored. The points relied on by him in his appeal from the ruling on that motion, which will be presently considered and disposed of in the order in which they are identified in his statement of points, read:
Subsections (a) to (e) incl., of appellant's point 1, are all based upon the premise the evidence does not support but contradicts the findings of the trial court. These findings, it is to be noted, were made by the same district judge who was called upon to preside and pass sentence upon the appellant at the time he entered the 1955 plea of guilty to murder in the first degree. Nothing would be gained by here laboring the evidence of record. It suffices to say we have carefully reviewed a long, tedious and confusing transcript and are convinced appellant's position "the evidence does not support but contradicts the trial court's findings of fact" lacks merit and cannot be upheld. Indeed, based upon our examination of the entire record the very most that can be said for appellant's position with respect to the claims of error now under consideration is that, while there may have been some evidence to the contrary, the record discloses an abundance of substantial competent evidence to support the findings, hereinabove identified as (a) to (e) incl.  thus bringing appellant's claims of error regarding such findings squarely within the long-established and decisive rules, recently reiterated in one of our latest decisions. *710 See Finnell v. Patrons Co-operative Bank, 193 Kan. 354, 394 P.2d 116, where it is held:
From a factual standpoint the difficulty with appellant's claims with respect to his second point is twofold. In the first place the record does not warrant a conclusion his plea of not guilty was changed to guilty upon the recommendation of Henry, his court-appointed counsel. On the contrary its fair import is, that after being fully advised by Henry as to what could well happen if in view of the evidence known to be in the hands of the prosecuting authorities he were to stand trial on his plea of not guilty, appellant concluded it would be to his best interests to enter a plea of guilty to murder in the first degree with the understanding the state would not ask for imposition of the death penalty. With this in mind he changed his original plea and, as is obvious, the death sentence was not imposed. Secondly, the record before us does not disclose that Henry ever unqualifiedly promised appellant he would obtain clemency for him. The utmost that can be said for this phase of the claim is that Henry told appellant he would try to obtain clemency. In this connection it is interesting to note that following appellant's conviction and sentence Henry more than fulfilled that promise by making several unsuccessful attempts through the proper state authorities, to obtain clemency for him. In view of what has been heretofore stated it cannot be successfully argued the court erred in failing to make the finding referred to in the point now under consideration.
What has been stated and held up to his point could well dispose of this appeal. However, we are not averse to giving consideration to the two remaining points on which appellant relies as grounds for reversal of the judgment.
In point 3, wherein appellant challenges the trial court's finding and conclusion No. 6, supra, to the effect his plea of guilty and sentence to life imprisonment did not violate any of his constitutional rights, the gist of all complaints raised by appellant seems to be that Henry, his court-appointed counsel was incompetent and failed to adequately represent him. The reasonable limits *711 of a judicial opinion will not permit a review of all of the evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion. It suffices to say the record discloses that at the time Henry was appointed counsel in the criminal action resulting in the involved judgment and sentence he was an able and experienced practicing attorney who had represented other criminals and was familiar with the criminal law of this state and that after he had accepted the appointment, as appellant's counsel, he diligently, faithfully, conscientiously, and competently performed the duties required of him under such appointment. Moreover, the record further discloses that all insinuations and contentions of appellant to the contrary lack merit and cannot be upheld.
Appellant's fourth and final point is that the court erred in admitting any evidence offered by the appellee (state) when the appellee failed to file any responsive pleading to his 60-1507 motion. There are at least two sound reasons for denying appellant's claim on this point. In the first place there is nothing in this record to indicate, in fact it is not even suggested, that appellant made any objection to the evidence offered by appellee during the hearing on the motion. In that situation the long established rule of this court is that he cannot now complain because appellee's evidence was either offered or admitted. In the next place  as we construe the provisions of 60-1507  when a full and complete evidentiary hearing is afforded a plaintiff under its terms it is neither necessary nor required that the defendant answer or otherwise plead to the plaintiff's motion in order to refute the allegations of the motion or the evidence offered by the plaintiff in support thereof. See Gard's Kansas Code of Civil Procedure Annotated § 60-1507[b], p. 707.
We find nothing in the record or in arguments advanced by appellant with respect thereto which either warrants or permits a reversal of the trial court's judgment and it must be affirmed.
It is so ordered.