BY THE COURT
2015 Supp. 60-237 does not permit postconviction discovery in
a criminal case.
from Sedgwick District Court; Jeffrey E. Goering, judge.
Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the
briefs for appellant, and Elgin R. Robinson Jr., appellant
pro se, was on a supplemental brief.
A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, argued the cause,
and Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt,
attorney general, were with her on the briefs for appellee.
Robinson Jr. appeals the district court's denial of his
postconviction motion to compel discovery. We affirm.
and Procedural Background
2008, a Sedgwick County jury convicted Elgin Robinson Jr. of
capital murder, rape, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated
indecent liberties with a minor, and violation of a
protection from abuse order. The district court sentenced him
to life imprisonment without parole plus 247 additional
months. Robinson appealed, and this court affirmed his
convictions. State v. Robinson, 293 Kan. 1002, 270
P.3d 1183 (2012). On May 18, 2012, Robinson filed a motion
under K.S.A. 60-1507 arguing ineffective assistance of
counsel. The district court denied the motion after a
nonevidentiary hearing, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Robinson v. State, No. 111, 923, 2016 WL 1169381
(Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished decision), review
denied 306 Kan. 1320 (2017).
2015, Robinson filed a pro se "motion to compel
exculpatory discovery pursuant to K.S.A. 60-237 and
Brady/Giglio rules." Robinson argued that the State had
withheld information suggesting that a witness who testified
against him-Detective Timothy Relph-was not credible.
response to Robinson's motion, the State noted that
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3212, not K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-237,
governs discovery in criminal cases and does not address any
duty to disclose information in a postconviction setting. The
State acknowledged that under Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio
v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-55, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31
L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), the State has a continuing duty to
disclose evidence favorable to the defense, even after
conviction, if the State knew of that evidence during trial.
However, the State argued that it had no
"Brady/Giglio" information regarding
Detective Relph and, therefore, Robinson's motion was
district court denied Robinson's motion. It concluded
that, "[b]ecause the State is not in possession of any
information covered by Defendant's Motion, there is no
information for the Court to order the State to
moved for reconsideration. In this pro se motion, Robinson
asked the district court to conduct an in camera review of
Relph's personnel file to determine whether the file
contained "information that is deemed Brady/Giglio
material." Robinson alleged that Relph had lied under
oath at a federal trial and that the State did not disclose
the district court denied Robinson's motion. The judge
observed that Robinson had cited no rule of criminal
procedure allowing for "a post-conviction motion for
Brady/Giglio information of a witness who had
testified in the Defendant's underlying trial." It
concluded that, if Robinson had been improperly denied such
evidence during trial, his remedy was a direct appeal or
motion under K.S.A. 60-1507. Furthermore, the court ruled,
the State "averred that it had no Brady/Giglio
information regarding Detective Relph," and
Robinson's allegations of perjury, without something ...