Title: Jackson v. State
Citation: 202 Kan. 194, 448 P.2d 18
Docket Number: 44,693
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: December 7, 1968

202 Kan. 194 (1968)
448 P.2d 18
WILLIAM H. JACKSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee.
No. 44,693

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 7, 1968.
William H. Jackson, movant and appellant, pro se.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HATCHER, C.:
This is an opinion on a post-decision motion. The movant requests that we overrule our previous decision in the entitled matter and consider his appeal on the merits.
This court had before it the appeal of the appellant from an order of the district court denying consideration of the petition for relief under K.S.A. 60-1507 for the reason the petitioner had filed a previous petition for relief under the same statute. On November 5, 1966, we remanded the case to the district court directing that the action be dismissed. We concluded in the opinion:
The decision was based on Supreme Court Rule No. 121 (c) (2) which read:
The above rule was taken from the federal rule announced in *195 McNally v. Hill, Warden, 293 U.S. 131, 79 L. Ed. 238, 55 S. Ct. 24 (1934). The McNally case was overruled in Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U.S. 335, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1215, 88 S. Ct. 692 (March 11, 1968).
In view of the recent United States Supreme Court decision we deleted the above quoted provision from our rules and it is no longer given effect. (Davis v. State, 202 Kan. 192, 446 P.2d 830.)
Under the present existing circumstances the mandate should be withdrawn and the original appeal determined on the merits.
The first petition presented to the district court was in letter form and did not raise the questions presented in the second formal opinion. The situation here would appear to be covered by the rule laid down in McQueeney v. State, 198 Kan. 642, 426 P.2d 114. We quote from page 644 of the opinion:
We conclude that the trial court should have considered the second petition on the merits.
The mandate issued on November 29, 1966, from this court shall be recalled, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded with instructions to the district court to determine the issues present in the formal petition filed February 15, 1965.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.