prisoner challenge in Kansas

2026Thuko v. State, 310 Kan. 74 , 78, 444 P.3d 927 (2019). 3 A petition filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1501 "is a procedural means through which a prisoner may challenge the mode or conditions of his or her confinement." Denney, 315 Kan. at 172 .

2025A K.S.A. 60-1501 petition is "'a procedural means through which a prisoner may challenge the mode or conditions of his or her confinement, including administrative actions of the penal institution,'" whereas a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is "a procedure by which a prisoner may challenge his or her conviction or sentence." Denney v. Norwood, 315 Kan. 163, 172 , 505 P.3d 730 (2022).

1967Neither is the district court compelled to accept all allegations in a motion filed for relief under the statute as presumptively valid, nor accept allegations which are patently unbelievable.’ (Edge v. Wainwright, 347 F. 2d 190, 192 .) Flimsy and transparent charges or allegations are insufficient to sustain a justiciable controversy. . . .” (l. c. 233.) See, also, Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1 , 10 L.

1966Neither is the district court compelled to accept all allegations in a motion filed for relief under the statute as presumptively valid, nor accept allegations which are “patently unbelievable.” (Edge v. Wainwright, 347 F. 2d 190, 192 .) Flimsy and transparent charges or allegations are insufficient to sustain a justiciable controversy.

1966S. A. 60-1507, (Hanes v. State, 196 Kan. 404 , 411 P. 2d 643 ); that such proceeding is not a substitute for direct appeal where trial errors are urged upon this court, (Miles v. State, 195 Kan. 516 , 407 P. 2d 507 ); that the files and records of the trial court may conclusively show a prisoner is not entitled to a formal plenary hearing, (State v. Burnett, 194 Kan. 645, 400 P. 2d 971 ); and that it may not be necessary to produce the prisoner at the hearing in the absence of a showing of substantial issues of fact as to events in which he participated.

1966S. A. 60-1507, (Hanes v. State, 196 Kan. 404 , 411 P. 2d 643 ); that such proceeding is not a substitute for direct appeal where trial errors are urged upon this court, (Miles v. State, 195 Kan. 516 , 407 P. 2d 507 ); that the files and records of the trial court may conclusively show a prisoner is not entitled to a formal plenary hearing, (State v. Burnett, 194 Kan. 645, 400 P. 2d 971 ); and that it may not be necessary to produce the prisoner at the hearing in the absence of a showing of substantial issues of fact as to events in which he participated.

2026Thuko v. State, 310 Kan. 74 , 78, 444 P.3d 927 (2019). 3 A petition filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1501 "is a procedural means through which a prisoner may challenge the mode or conditions of his or her confinement." Denney, 315 Kan. at 172 .

2023In State v. Hall, 220 Kan. 712, 714-15 , 556 P.2d 413 (1976), we explained that "requiring an accused to stand trial in distinctive prison clothing . . . may result in an unfair trial and may deny the prisoner the presumption of innocence . . . ." But we also observed "the appearance of an accused in prison garb at a trial or some portion thereof, does not in and of itself constitute reversible error.

2023In State v. Hall, 220 Kan. 712, 714-15 , 556 P.2d 413 (1976), we explained that "requiring an accused to stand trial in distinctive prison clothing . . . may result in an unfair trial and may deny the prisoner the presumption of innocence . . . ." But we also observed "the appearance of an accused in prison garb at a trial or some portion thereof, does not in and of itself constitute reversible error.

1969We think the practice is right because this matter of whether a prisoner is a good risk for release on parole or has shown himself not to he a good risk, is a disciplinary matter which by its very nature should be left in hands of those charged with the responsibility for deciding the question. . . (p. 334.) Under statutes similar to those of Kansas, the supreme court of New Mexico had before it the question of a parolee’s right to counsel at a revocation hearing in Robinson v. Cox, 77 N. M. 55, 419 P. 2d 253 .

1968(Lee v. State, 197 Kan. 371 , 416 P. 2d 285 .)” (Jackson v. State, 197 Kan. 627 , syl., 419 P. 2d 937 .) The decision was based on Supreme Court Rule No. 121 (c) (2) which read: “• • • a prisoner has no right to an adjudication of a motion challenging the validity of a sentence where notwithstanding an adjudication of invalidity of the sentence challenged he would still be confined under another sentence, . . .” (194 Kan. xxvn.) The above rule was taken from the federal rule announced in *195 McNally v. Hill, Warden, 293 U. S. 131 , 79 L.

1968(Lee v. State, 197 Kan. 371 , 416 P. 2d 285 .)” (Jackson v. State, 197 Kan. 627 , syl., 419 P. 2d 937 .) The decision was based on Supreme Court Rule No. 121 (c) (2) which read: “• • • a prisoner has no right to an adjudication of a motion challenging the validity of a sentence where notwithstanding an adjudication of invalidity of the sentence challenged he would still be confined under another sentence, . . .” (194 Kan. xxvn.) The above rule was taken from the federal rule announced in *195 McNally v. Hill, Warden, 293 U. S. 131 , 79 L.

1968(Lee v. State, 197 Kan. 371 , 416 P. 2d 285 .)” (Jackson v. State, 197 Kan. 627 , syl., 419 P. 2d 937 .) The decision was based on Supreme Court Rule No. 121 (c) (2) which read: “• • • a prisoner has no right to an adjudication of a motion challenging the validity of a sentence where notwithstanding an adjudication of invalidity of the sentence challenged he would still be confined under another sentence, . . .” (194 Kan. xxvn.) The above rule was taken from the federal rule announced in *195 McNally v. Hill, Warden, 293 U. S. 131 , 79 L.

1968(Lee v. State, 197 Kan. 371 , 416 P. 2d 285 .)” (Jackson v. State, 197 Kan. 627 , syl., 419 P. 2d 937 .) The decision was based on Supreme Court Rule No. 121 (c) (2) which read: “• • • a prisoner has no right to an adjudication of a motion challenging the validity of a sentence where notwithstanding an adjudication of invalidity of the sentence challenged he would still be confined under another sentence, . . .” (194 Kan. xxvn.) The above rule was taken from the federal rule announced in *195 McNally v. Hill, Warden, 293 U. S. 131 , 79 L.

1968(Lee v. State, 197 Kan. 371 , 416 P. 2d 285 .)” (Jackson v. State, 197 Kan. 627 , syl., 419 P. 2d 937 .) The decision was based on Supreme Court Rule No. 121 (c) (2) which read: “• • • a prisoner has no right to an adjudication of a motion challenging the validity of a sentence where notwithstanding an adjudication of invalidity of the sentence challenged he would still be confined under another sentence, . . .” (194 Kan. xxvn.) The above rule was taken from the federal rule announced in *195 McNally v. Hill, Warden, 293 U. S. 131 , 79 L.

1968(Lee v. State, 197 Kan. 371 , 416 P. 2d 285 .)” (Jackson v. State, 197 Kan. 627 , syl., 419 P. 2d 937 .) The decision was based on Supreme Court Rule No. 121 (c) (2) which read: “• • • a prisoner has no right to an adjudication of a motion challenging the validity of a sentence where notwithstanding an adjudication of invalidity of the sentence challenged he would still be confined under another sentence, . . .” (194 Kan. xxvn.) The above rule was taken from the federal rule announced in *195 McNally v. Hill, Warden, 293 U. S. 131 , 79 L.

1967Neither is the district court compelled to accept all allegations in a motion filed for relief under the statute as presumptively valid, nor accept allegations which are patently unbelievable.’ (Edge v. Wainwright, 347 F. 2d 190, 192 .) Flimsy and transparent charges or allegations are insufficient to sustain a justiciable controversy. . . .” (l. c. 233.) See, also, Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1 , 10 L.

1967Neither is the district court compelled to accept all allegations in a motion filed for relief under the statute as presumptively valid, nor accept allegations which are patently unbelievable.’ (Edge v. Wainwright, 347 F. 2d 190, 192 .) Flimsy and transparent charges or allegations are insufficient to sustain a justiciable controversy. . . .” (l. c. 233.) See, also, Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1 , 10 L.

1966S. A. 60-1507, (Hanes v. State, 196 Kan. 404 , 411 P. 2d 643 ); that such proceeding is not a substitute for direct appeal where trial errors are urged upon this court, (Miles v. State, 195 Kan. 516 , 407 P. 2d 507 ); that the files and records of the trial court may conclusively show a prisoner is not entitled to a formal plenary hearing, (State v. Burnett, 194 Kan. 645, 400 P. 2d 971 ); and that it may not be necessary to produce the prisoner at the hearing in the absence of a showing of substantial issues of fact as to events in which he participated.

1966S. A. 60-1507, (Hanes v. State, 196 Kan. 404 , 411 P. 2d 643 ); that such proceeding is not a substitute for direct appeal where trial errors are urged upon this court, (Miles v. State, 195 Kan. 516 , 407 P. 2d 507 ); that the files and records of the trial court may conclusively show a prisoner is not entitled to a formal plenary hearing, (State v. Burnett, 194 Kan. 645, 400 P. 2d 971 ); and that it may not be necessary to produce the prisoner at the hearing in the absence of a showing of substantial issues of fact as to events in which he participated.

1966S. A. 60-1507, (Hanes v. State, 196 Kan. 404 , 411 P. 2d 643 ); that such proceeding is not a substitute for direct appeal where trial errors are urged upon this court, (Miles v. State, 195 Kan. 516 , 407 P. 2d 507 ); that the files and records of the trial court may conclusively show a prisoner is not entitled to a formal plenary hearing, (State v. Burnett, 194 Kan. 645, 400 P. 2d 971 ); and that it may not be necessary to produce the prisoner at the hearing in the absence of a showing of substantial issues of fact as to events in which he participated.

1966S. A. 60-1507, (Hanes v. State, 196 Kan. 404 , 411 P. 2d 643 ); that such proceeding is not a substitute for direct appeal where trial errors are urged upon this court, (Miles v. State, 195 Kan. 516 , 407 P. 2d 507 ); that the files and records of the trial court may conclusively show a prisoner is not entitled to a formal plenary hearing, (State v. Burnett, 194 Kan. 645, 400 P. 2d 971 ); and that it may not be necessary to produce the prisoner at the hearing in the absence of a showing of substantial issues of fact as to events in which he participated.

1966(Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 .) Whether the motion to vacate in the present case can appropriately be disposed of without the presence of the petitioner at the hearing is a question to be resolved in the further proceedings in the district court.

1966(Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 .) Whether the motion to vacate in the present case can appropriately be disposed of without the presence of the petitioner at the hearing is a question to be resolved in the further proceedings in the district court.