Title: Mize v. State
Citation: 199 Kan. 666, 433 P.2d 397
Docket Number: 44,811
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: November 13, 1967

199 Kan. 666 (1967)
433 P.2d 397
JOHN LEONARD MIZE, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 44,811

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed November 13, 1967.
Wayne E. Hundley, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellant.
Robert D. Hecht, County Attorney, argued the cause, and Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General, was with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HATCHER, C.:
This was a proceeding to vacate and set aside a sentence under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507.
On March 8, 1962, the petitioner was convicted of burglary in the second degree as defined by G.S. 1959 Supp., 21-520 and larceny as defined by G.S. 1949, 21-524. After due notice the petitioner was sentenced under G.S. 1949, 21-107a as an habitual criminal. (Statutory designation now K.S.A.)
On May 3, 1965, petitioner filed proceedings under K.S.A. 60-1507 seeking to have his conviction and sentence vacated and set aside. The trial court held a hearing after which it filed a well prepared memorandum decision on each issue presented and denied relief.
The petitioner has appealed to this court contending that the trial court erred in its ruling in three particulars which we will proceed to consider.
The appellant first contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant appellant a full evidentiary hearing on the question of evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure. The trial court concluded:
We are forced to agree with the conclusion of the trial court. We have held in numerous cases that alleged trial errors not presented to trial court will not be reviewed on appeal. (See, Jones v. Kansas City Embalming &amp; Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51, 372 P.2d 60; Rexroad v. Kansas Power &amp; Light Co., 192 Kan. 343, 388 P.2d 832; State v. Ireton, 193 Kan. 206, 392 P.2d 883; State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512, 515, 394 P.2d 106; Williams v. Crouse, 193 Kan. 526, 394 P.2d 96, and State v. Wolfe, 194 Kan. 697, 401 P.2d 917.)
It would serve no useful purpose to deny review on appeal because of the contemporaneous objection rule and then permit review by the more circuitous route under K.S.A. 60-1507 proceedings. The rule is necessary if a court is to be permitted to correct its own errors and litigation is to be brought to an end. The rule serves a legitimate state purpose.
We find no merit in appellant's suggestion that his court appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance. In Hicks v. Hand, 189 Kan. 415, 417, 369 P.2d 250, we state:
Appellant's attorney defending the original prosecution was an experienced attorney in criminal matters having served as assistant county attorney of Shawnee County, Kansas, and having represented numerous criminal defendants in the district court. Any action or inaction taken by him must be charged to strategy rather than ignorance of the law.
The appellant ends his alleged errors with the contention that the trial court erroneously refused to set aside the judgment and sentence for the reason he was restricted to only six peremptory challenges. Appellant makes no suggestion that the offenses for *668 which he was tried and convicted allowed him more than six such challenges but contends that as he faced a possible sentence of not less than fifteen years under the habitual criminal act he should have been allowed eight peremptory challenges under that part of K.S.A. 62-1402 which reads:
We disposed of a similar question in State v. Butler, 131 Kan. 680, 293 Pac. 756, where we held:
A careful examination of the record discloses nothing that would justify our disturbing the findings and conclusions of the trial court.
The judgment is affirmed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.