Opinion ID: 877465
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: vagueness as bar to evidentiary hearing

Text: The lower court denied thirteen of Coleman's claims because they were too vague to state new claims or were unsupported by authority and were, therefore, barred by res judicata. The State argued in the District Court that vague new allegations do not present a proper basis for review. We agree. Vague rehashings of issues previously adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction will not make unworthy claims magically meritorious. Naked allegations of injustice cannot constitute new grounds or provide any basis for relief. Cf. Hooker v. People (1970), 173 Colo. 226, 477 P.2d 376. Again, we must defer to the discretion of the District Court in determining if the claims made in the petition are valid or merely previously decided issues in disguise. Andrews v. Morris (Utah 1980), 607 P.2d 816, cert. denied, 446 U.S. 949, 101 S.Ct. 254, 66 L.Ed.2d 120. Moreover, this Court will not disturb the post-conviction court's judgment in this regard absent a clear abuse of discretion. See Redd v. State (1967), 199 Kan. 431, 429 P.2d 925 (emphasizing great discretion in the post-conviction court to make initial judgments regarding validity and substance of claims). We affirm the holding of the District Court that the following thirteen issues or claims are dismissed as res judicata because the vague new allegations do not affect the validity of the prior determination of this Court: B, E, K, Q, U, X, CC, EE, FF, OO, QQ, RR, and XX.