Court Opinion

ID: 9629356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:41:11.156952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:10.442604
License: Public Domain

Fromme, J.,
dissenting: In my opinion the action of this court in declaring the sentence under the habitual criminal act void is too robust.
The present attack upon defendant’s conviction and sentence is pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1507, and comes six years after conviction.
The questions raised in the 1507 proceeding did not include sufficiency of proof of the prior conviction.
The record on appeal prepared for this court did not encompass the sufficiency of evidence question.
Therefore, we assume from a partial record there was no proof six years before at the trial to support the enhanced penalty. This conclusion is reached by determining there was no evidence to show the conviction in Connecticut was based upon a second offense in-that state. The record is not clear on this point.
However, our conclusion that there was no competent evidence before the trial court six years before assumes that the partial record before us in the 1507 proceeding contains all the evidence-bearing upon the point presented at the original trial.
This we are not justified to assume and I respectfully dissent.
Schroeder and Kaul JJ., joint in the foregoing dissent.