K.S.A. § 60-1507

Prisoner in custody under sentence; motion attacking sentence, hearing and judgment; time limitations

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-1507. Prisoner in custody under sentence; motion attacking sentence, hearing and judgment; time limitations. (a) Motion attacking sentence. A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court of general jurisdiction claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States, or the constitution or laws of the state of Kansas, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may, pursuant to the time limitations imposed by subsection (f), move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.

(b) Hearing and judgment. Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the county attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. The court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner at the hearing. If the court finds that the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or is otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the court shall vacate and set the judgment aside and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence said prisoner or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.

(c) Successive motions. The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.

(d) Appeal. An appeal may be taken to the appellate court as provided by law from the order entered on the motion as from a final judgment on application for a writ of habeas corpus.

(e) Exclusiveness of remedy. An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced said applicant, or that such court has denied said applicant relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of said applicant's detention.

(f) Time limitations. (1) Any action under this section must be brought within one year of:

(A) The final order of the last appellate court in this state to exercise jurisdiction on a direct appeal or the termination of such appellate jurisdiction;

(B) the denial of a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States supreme court or issuance of such court's final order following granting such petition; or

(C) the decision of the district court denying a prior motion under this section, the opinion of the last appellate court in this state to exercise jurisdiction on such prior motion or the denial of the petition for review on such prior motion, whichever is later.

(2) The time limitation herein may be extended by the court only to prevent a manifest injustice.

(A) For purposes of finding manifest injustice under this section, the court's inquiry shall be limited to determining why the prisoner failed to file the motion within the one-year time limitation or whether the prisoner makes a colorable claim of actual innocence. As used herein, the term actual innocence requires the prisoner to show it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted the prisoner in light of new evidence.

(B) If the court makes a manifest-injustice finding, it must state the factual and legal basis for such finding in writing with service to the parties.

(3) If the court, upon its own inspection of the motions, files and records of the case, determines the time limitations under this section have been exceeded and that the dismissal of the motion would not equate with manifest injustice, the district court must dismiss the motion as untimely filed.

(g) The amendments made to subsection (f) by this act shall not bar actions under this section that are brought within one year of the effective date of this act.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-1507; L. 1976, ch. 251, § 24; L. 2003, ch. 65, § 1; L. 2016, ch. 58, § 2; L. 2022, ch. 47, § 4; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,762 cases (758 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Beauclair v. State
Beauclair v. State (2018) kan · cites it 40× “: This appeal addresses current law on whether a criminal defendant's claim of actual innocence excuses procedural defaults that would otherwise bar litigation of motions filed under K.S.A. 60-1507. Defendant Danny E. Beauclair pleaded no contest in 2001 to one count of rape of…”
White v. State (2018) kan · cites it 45× “If an untimely motion was filed under K.S.A. 60-1507 before July 1, 2016, and the movant asserts the court should apply the manifest injustice exception to the one-year limitation period imposed in K.”
State v. Berreth (2012) kan · cites it 62× “His appointed counsel later filed motions citing K.S.A. 60-1507, which expanded Berreth's pro se motion.”
LaPOINTE v. State (2009) kanctapp · cites it 105× “Jack LaPointe appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.”
Khalil-Alsalaami v. State (2021) kan · cites it 24× “Where the district court conducts a full evidentiary hearing and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law in ruling on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, we apply the mixed standard of review customarily applied in similar civil proceedings.”
Robertson v. State (2009) kan · cites it 44× “: This is a K.S.A. 60-1507 action brought by movant Joshua Robertson to challenge his jury convictions of first-degree murder, arson, and aggravated burglary.”
Skaggs v. State (2020) kanctapp · cites it 45× “Thompson, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.”
– State v. Smith – (2020) kan · cites it 23× “22-3602(a) makes clear that, regardless of this prohibition, a defendant may still file a motion in the district court in accordance with the directives outlined in K.S.A. 60-1507, and appellate courts have jurisdiction to review a defendant's appeal from a ruling on such a…”
Woods v. State (2016) kanctapp · cites it 27× “In this, his untimely and successive K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, he asks us to order the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to examine his claim of actual innocence.”
Thompson v. State (2011) kan · cites it 35× “: Marc Thompson appeals the denial in part and dismissal in part of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Thompson argues that tire court should have permitted him to ■pursue an amended claim that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective.”
Trotter v. State (2009) kan · cites it 28× “Trotter appeals the district court’s summary denial of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, raising arguments that we have grouped into two issues for purposes of our analysis.”
Fischer v. State (2013) kan · cites it 32× “: The State of Kansas challenges a decision by a divided Court of Appeals panel ordering a correctional facility inmate’s physical presence at his K.S.A. 60-1507 evidentiary hearing. The majority reversed the trial court’s determination that the inmate would participate by…”
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(1) — 1 case
Vontress v. State (2014) kan
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(2) — 1 case
Dupree v. State (2022) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(2)(A) — 1 case
Booker v. State (2024) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(B)(3) — 1 case
Crawford v. State (2021) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(a) — 94 cases
– State v. Smith – (2020) kan “22-3602(a) makes clear that, regardless of this prohibition, a defendant may still file a motion in the district court in accordance with the directives outlined in K.S.A. 60-1507, and appellate courts have jurisdiction to review a defendant's appeal from a ruling on such a…”
Baker v. State (2013) kan
State v. Holmes (2004) kan
Stewart v. State (2019) kan
Miller v. State (2014) kan
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(b) — 161 cases
Stewart v. State (2019) kan
Beauclair v. State (2018) kan “: This appeal addresses current law on whether a criminal defendant's claim of actual innocence excuses procedural defaults that would otherwise bar litigation of motions filed under K.S.A. 60-1507. Defendant Danny E. Beauclair pleaded no contest in 2001 to one count of rape of…”
Bellamy v. State (2007) kan
Fischer v. State (2009) kanctapp
Fischer v. State (2013) kan “: The State of Kansas challenges a decision by a divided Court of Appeals panel ordering a correctional facility inmate’s physical presence at his K.S.A. 60-1507 evidentiary hearing. The majority reversed the trial court’s determination that the inmate would participate by…”
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(c) — 143 cases
Thuko v. State (2019) kan
Manco v. State (2015) kanctapp
State v. Mitchell (2022) kan
Littlejohn v. State (2019) kan
Beauclair v. State (2018) kan “: This appeal addresses current law on whether a criminal defendant's claim of actual innocence excuses procedural defaults that would otherwise bar litigation of motions filed under K.S.A. 60-1507. Defendant Danny E. Beauclair pleaded no contest in 2001 to one count of rape of…”
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(d) — 9 cases
State v. Berreth (2012) kan “His appointed counsel later filed motions citing K.S.A. 60-1507, which expanded Berreth's pro se motion.”
Ferguson v. State (2003) kan
Brown v. State (2004) kan
Allison v. State (2018) kanctapp
State v. Richardson (2021) kan
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(e) — 9 cases
State v. Mitchell (2013) kan
Shepherd v. Davies (1990) kanctapp
State v. Sellers (2015) kan
Caddell v. State (2021) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f) — 149 cases
White v. State (2018) kan “If an untimely motion was filed under K.S.A. 60-1507 before July 1, 2016, and the movant asserts the court should apply the manifest injustice exception to the one-year limitation period imposed in K.”
Beauclair v. State (2018) kan “: This appeal addresses current law on whether a criminal defendant's claim of actual innocence excuses procedural defaults that would otherwise bar litigation of motions filed under K.S.A. 60-1507. Defendant Danny E. Beauclair pleaded no contest in 2001 to one count of rape of…”
Tolen v. State (2008) kan
Thompson v. State (2011) kan “: Marc Thompson appeals the denial in part and dismissal in part of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Thompson argues that tire court should have permitted him to ■pursue an amended claim that his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective.”
State v. Berreth (2012) kan “His appointed counsel later filed motions citing K.S.A. 60-1507, which expanded Berreth's pro se motion.”
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(1) — 124 cases
White v. State (2018) kan “If an untimely motion was filed under K.S.A. 60-1507 before July 1, 2016, and the movant asserts the court should apply the manifest injustice exception to the one-year limitation period imposed in K.”
Thuko v. State (2019) kan
Rowell v. State (2021) kanctapp
State v. Trotter (2013) kan
Toney v. State (2008) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(1)(A) — 46 cases
Sherwood v. State (2019) kan
State v. McAlister (2019) kan
State v. Brown (2024) kan
Dotson v. State (2020) kanctapp
Trester v. State (2021) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(1)(B) — 1 case
Seacat v. State (2022) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(1)(C) — 8 cases
Gordon v. State (2026) kanctapp
Denney v. State (2024) kanctapp
Hudgins v. State (2026) kanctapp
Wimbley v. State (2024) kanctapp
Ebihara v. State (2025) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(1)(i) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(2) — 147 cases
Sherwood v. State (2019) kan
Beauclair v. State (2018) kan “: This appeal addresses current law on whether a criminal defendant's claim of actual innocence excuses procedural defaults that would otherwise bar litigation of motions filed under K.S.A. 60-1507. Defendant Danny E. Beauclair pleaded no contest in 2001 to one count of rape of…”
Noyce v. State (2019) kan
Ludlow v. State (2007) kanctapp
State v. Gilbert (2014) kan
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(2)(A) — 118 cases
Beauclair v. State (2018) kan “: This appeal addresses current law on whether a criminal defendant's claim of actual innocence excuses procedural defaults that would otherwise bar litigation of motions filed under K.S.A. 60-1507. Defendant Danny E. Beauclair pleaded no contest in 2001 to one count of rape of…”
Skaggs v. State (2020) kanctapp “Thompson, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.”
Sherwood v. State (2019) kan
Requena v. State (2019) kan
Brown v. State (2020) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(2)(B) — 5 cases
Crum v. State (2022) kanctapp
Marks v. State (2022) kanctapp
Holloway v. State (2024) kanctapp
Barnett v. State (2024) kanctapp
Robertson v. State (2024) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(2)(a) — 1 case
Beltz v. State (2025) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(3) — 51 cases
Love v. State (2021) kanctapp
Francis v. State (2020) kanctapp
State v. Reed (2020) kanctapp
Klein v. State (2021) kanctapp
Payton v. State (2023) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(A) — 2 cases
Trussell v. State (2020) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(l) — 9 cases
Wahl v. State (2015) kan
Toney v. State (2008) kanctapp
Pabst v. State (2008) kan
Shumway v. State (2013) kanctapp
Clemons v. State (2008) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(l)(i) — 3 cases
Baker v. State (2013) kan
State v. Holt (2013) kan
Scaife v. State (2015) kanctapp
— K.S.A. § 60-1507(f)(l)(ii) — 1 case
Scaife v. State (2015) kanctapp
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.