Opinion ID: 3161541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-Conviction Petitions in Kansas Courts

Text: Mr. Griffin pursued state post-conviction relief three times, to no avail. First, in 2008 he moved for post-conviction relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 601507.1 He claimed (1) his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for dismissal of the attempted second-degree murder charge, and (2) the trial court erred because it failed to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. The district court denied relief, the KCA affirmed, and the KSC declined further review. 1 Prisoners in Kansas can collaterally attack their sentences under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1507, which allows prisoners to “move the court which imposed the[ir] sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” -7- Second, Mr. Griffin moved in 2010 for post-conviction relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-260(b)(6),2 arguing the jury instructions violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by lowering the Government’s burden to prove specific intent. Mr. Griffin relied on State v. Engelhardt, 119 P.3d 1148 (Kan. 2005), and State v. Overstreet, 200 P.3d 427 (Kan. 2009), to argue the jury instructions erroneously allowed the jury to convict him of second-degree murder without proving the requisite specific intent. The state district court explained post-conviction relief is unavailable under § 60260(b)(6), construed Mr. Griffin’s filing as his second § 60-1507 motion, and denied it as successive. Mr. Griffin did not appeal the denial. We note here this second attempt at state collateral review is the only time Mr. Griffin explicitly alleged a due process violation in state court. Third, Mr. Griffin filed a § 60-1507 motion for post-conviction relief in 2011, claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for abandoning several issues when seeking review by the KSC on direct appeal. The state district court summarily denied relief. The KCA affirmed, concluding the motion was successive and untimely, and in any event, Mr. Griffin failed to demonstrate his counsel had performed deficiently.