Court Opinion

ID: 9565390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:20:00.546841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:36.295397
License: Public Domain

Swinehart, J.:
In May of 1981, a jury convicted defendant, Clayton Logan, of the sale of methamphetamine in violation of K.S.A. 65-4107(d)(3) and 65-4127b(fe)(2). Defendant’s direct appeal to this court was affirmed in an unpublished opinion (No. 53,502, filed July 9, 1982).
During the original trial and the appeal thereof, the defendant was represented by attorney Lyle Britt. Subsequent to the above proceedings and with the assistance of a different attorney, the defendant filed a pleading in this case denominated as a motion for new trial. The basis for this motion was twofold: (1) that defendant’s original attorney was incompetent, and (2) that the trial judge was biased. Defendant alleged that in the name of justice and because of newly discovered evidence he should be granted a new trial.
Prior to a hearing on the motion, defendant had moved for the disqualification of the trial judge, Owen Ballinger. This motion for disqualification was denied by the assigned judge. James J. Noone. Following this ruling, evidence was presented and the motion for new trial was denied. It is from this denial that defendant now appeals.
Some of the facts relevant to this appeal concern the performance of defendant’s attorney, Britt, during defendant’s original trial. Attorney Britt, as a trial tactic, had defendant testify as to certain prior convictions. Defendant disclosed only his prior offenses involving dishonesty, namely, felony burglary and robbery. The jury was led to reasonably believe that defendant had been convicted of only those offenses, and that the last such offense occurred some nine years prior to the offense upon which defendant was now being tried. In fact, the last offense of *354which defendant was convicted was the sale of drugs (LSD). On cross-examination, the State attempted to reveal to the jury that defendant’s most recent conviction was for the sale of LSD. The defendant, at the direction of his attorney, pled the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer the State’s questions. Ultimately, defendant was required to testify as to his conviction of a drug offense. However, the trial court correctly instructed the jury that it was to disregard this testimony in deciding the guilt or innocence of defendant on the present charges.
The other fact relevant to this appeal is that the trial judge, Owen Ballinger, is the father of an assistant prosecuting attorney in the office of the Sedgwick County district attorney. Even though it is not alleged that the judge’s son participated in this prosecution at any stage of the proceedings, defendant argues that such a relationship is sufficient evidence of the court’s bias and prejudice as to constitute denial of a fair trial.
We find that the factual bases of these motions are not susceptible of resolution by a motion for new trial filed after a direct appeal has been argued and decision rendered by the appellate court. See State v. Myrick & Nelms, 228 Kan. 406, 423, 616 P.2d 1066 (1980); State v. Roberts, 226 Kan. 740, 745, 602 P.2d 1355 (1979); State v. Williamson, 210 Kan. 501, 506, 502 P.2d 777 (1972). Further, in order to resolve defendant’s contention, we shall consider this matter as having been filed and considered by the trial court under the provisions of K.S.A. 60-1507.
First, we consider the question of the alleged incompetency of trial counsel. The facts prove without question that Attorney Britt’s trial tactic, as it related to the use of defendant’s personal testimony of his prior criminal record, backfired. Attorney Britt has since testified as to his misunderstanding of the law and of the consequences of defendant’s testimony. We have reviewed the record before this court, which includes the original trial transcript. The remainder of Attorney Britt’s services appear to have been highly professional in every regard. Judged by the totality of the circumstances, we cannot find that Mr. Britt’s single mistake was so devastating as to prejudice defendant by lack of competent counsel. See State v. Voiles, 226 Kan. 469, 470-71, 601 P.2d 1121 (1979); Schoonover v. State, 2 Kan. App. 2d 481, 582 P.2d 292, rev. denied 225 Kan. 845 (1978). Accordingly, there exists no basis for setting aside the sentence and *355granting a new trial. See State v. Wright, 203 Kan. 54, 453 P.2d 1 (1969).
Finally, we consider the problem of the trial judge having a son who is on the staff of the district attorney’s office. The Code of Judicial Conduct as set forth by Supreme Court Rule 601, 232 Kan. cci, and particularly Canon 2, provides as follows:
“A A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
“B A judge should not allow his family, social or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment. He should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him. He should not testify voluntarily as a character witness. COMMENTARY
. . . A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. He must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. He must therefore accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Canon 3 provides:
“C. Disqualification.
“(1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where;
“(d) he or his spouse or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
“(ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding.” (232 Kan. cciii-cciv.)
The facts of this case show only that the trial judge’s son was on the staff of the Sedgwick County district attorney’s office as an assistant district attorney during the pendency of this action. The facts do not support any finding whatsoever that the defendant’s right to a fair trial was impeded, infringed upon, or denied by the connection here disclosed. We find that defendant was not prejudiced in any way, and his sentence and conviction should not be set aside on this ground. However, to eliminate this question being raised in future proceedings, we would deem it appropriate for Judge Ballinger to recuse himself from cases pending before him which the district attorney’s office is prosecuting while his son is employed on its staff.
Affirmed.