Thuko v. State

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's summary denial of Defendant's second Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion, holding that the court of appeals did not err in holding that counsel was not required to be appointed and that the district court did not err in finding that exceptional circumstances did not exist that would excuse Defendant's failure to make his claims in his first section 60-1507 motion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not violate Defendant's due process rights when it failed to appoint counsel to represent Defendant after requesting and receiving the State's response to Defendant's pro se motion; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion because no exceptions existed that would permit his untimely and successive filing. View "Thuko v. State" on Justia Law