Jay S. Parker

This case was an appeal from the denial of a prisoner's motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 to vacate his 1961 sentence for feloniously issuing a worthless check. The petitioner argued that he should have been charged only with an attempt because he never received the car he tried to buy with the check, and that the Kansas Board of Probation and Parole lost jurisdiction over him after his parole violations and out-of-state sentences. The court ruled that a 60-1507 motion cannot be used to review post-sentencing actions by the parole board and that the offense under G.S. 1949 21-554 was complete upon the knowing issuance of the no-fund check, regardless of whether anything of value was ultimately obtained. It therefore affirmed the denial of the motion, finding the original sentence valid.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Robert Victor Coats appealing the denial of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion to vacate judgments and sentences from two 1961 criminal cases in which he pleaded guilty to burglary, larceny, and willful destruction of county property. Coats contended that he lacked counsel at his preliminary hearings, received only five minutes of ineffective assistance from appointed counsel at arraignment, and should have been given counsel and a hearing on his post-conviction motion. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial, ruling that the record showed counsel was appointed and effectively represented him at arraignment after discussing the cases, that no substantial issue required a hearing or further appointment of counsel in the 60-1507 proceeding, and that challenges to the separate sentences could be consolidated under the circumstances. The court rejected the other claims as abandoned or without merit based on the transcripts.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case is an appeal from the denial of a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 to vacate a 1964 conviction and sentence for second-degree burglary and grand larceny in Lincoln County, Kansas. The appellant claimed violations of his rights due to lack of counsel at the preliminary hearing and arraignment, an uncounseled confession, and unlawful extradition from Nebraska. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion. The court reasoned that an irregular or unlawful arrest and extradition do not affect a court's jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea or impose sentence, that counsel was appointed before the plea was entered, and that the record supported summary denial without the appellant's presence at the hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a misdemeanor prosecution under a 1909 Kansas nuisance-prevention statute (K.S.A. 21-1212) against William D. Johnson for maintaining a pen containing horses and goats that was alleged to be unclean and annoying to neighboring citizens, even though the pen was more than twenty-five feet from the nearest dwelling. After a bench trial in district court, Johnson was convicted and fined fifty dollars. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting claims that the statute was unconstitutionally vague or violated due-process protections; it held that the second clause of the statute independently criminalized permitting an animal pen to remain unclean to the annoyance of any citizen and that the evidence supported the trial court's finding of such annoyance. The court further concluded that the statute supplied an ascertainable standard and did not require the pen to be within twenty-five feet of a house.

criminal lawenvironment

This case involved an employee of an independent contractor who was injured by an electrical shock while constructing a metal building at the defendant's refinery and sued the defendant for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was under the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Act because the defendant qualified as a statutory employer. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the limited stipulated facts did not establish whether the construction was part of the defendant's trade or business under K.S.A. 44-503 or whether it was work that would ordinarily have been performed by the defendant's own employees, making summary judgment improper without further evidence.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned a stepfather's petition to adopt a minor child without the consent of the natural father, who contested the proceeding after the mother consented. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment granting the adoption, holding that the father had failed to assume the duties of a parent for two consecutive years as required by K.S.A. 59-2102. The court based its decision on findings that the father had ceased child support payments after July 1961 and made no efforts to locate or visit the child despite opportunities to contact the mother's family, rejecting his argument that withholding support was justified to compel enforcement of visitation rights.

family law