Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thuko v. State

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 12, 2019

Fidelis K. Thuko, Appellant,
v.
State of Kansas, Appellee.

         SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

         1. A K.S.A. 60-1507 movant has no constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel in the postconviction proceedings, but under K.S.A. 22-4506(b), a district court has a statutory duty to appoint an attorney to represent an indigent 60-1507 movant whenever the motion presents substantial questions of law or triable issues of fact.

         2. During the period after receipt of a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion in which the district court is making its determination of whether the motion, files, and record present a substantial question of law or triable issue of fact-for example, after the district court has discerned a potentially substantial issue-the district court may, but is not required to, appoint an indigent 60-1507 movant an attorney. On the other hand, if the district court conducts a preliminary hearing to determine whether substantial issues are presented and the State is represented by counsel at that hearing, due process of law mandates that the movant be represented by counsel unless he or she has waived that right. The district court's review of the State's written response to a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is not the functional equivalent of an actual hearing.

         3. A movant has the burden to prove his or her K.S.A. 60-1507 motion warrants an evidentiary hearing; the movant must make more than conclusory contentions and must state an evidentiary basis in support of the claims, or an evidentiary basis must appear in the record.

         4. K.S.A. 60-1507(f) places a time limit on filing an action under that statute of one year from the date the movant's direct appeal becomes final, unless the time limitation is extended by the court to prevent a manifest injustice. A K.S.A. 60-1507 movant has the burden of establishing manifest injustice.

         5. A district court is not required to entertain successive K.S.A. 60-1507 motions on behalf of the same movant unless there are exceptional circumstances.

         Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed June 23, 2017.

          Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; James R. Fleetwood, judge.

          Michael P. Whalen, of Law Office of Michael P. Whalen, of Wichita, and Krystle M.S. Dalke, of the same firm, were on the brief for appellant.

          Lance J. Gillett, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

          JOHNSON, J.

         Fidelis K. Thuko seeks our review of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the district court's summary denial of his second K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. He argues that the district court violated his due process rights when it failed to appoint counsel to represent him after requesting and receiving the State's response to his pro se motion. Thuko also contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion based upon exceptions that would permit his untimely and successive filing. Finding no error, we affirm the lower courts.

         Factual and Procedural Overview

         In 2004, the State charged Thuko in two separate cases with a total of five counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. The charges were based on incidents involving four women: M.A.S.; N.N.K; E.A.B.; and S.L.S. On the State's motion, the trial court consolidated the cases for a jury trial. The jury found Thuko guilty of rape and attempted rape of M.A.S.; not guilty of another count of rape of M.A.S.; not guilty of rape of N.N.K.; and not guilty of rape of E.A.B. The jury could not reach a verdict on the charge of rape of S.L.S. and the State later dismissed this charge. The court sentenced Thuko to 147 months' imprisonment for rape and 55 months' imprisonment for attempted rape, to run consecutive to each other, for a total of 202 months' imprisonment.

         On direct appeal, Thuko argued: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in consolidating the two cases against him, (2) his speedy trial rights were violated, (3) prosecutorial misconduct denied him a fair trial, and (4) cumulative error. State v. Thuko, No. 94, 228, 2007 WL 92642 (Kan. App. 2007) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 284 Kan. 951 (2007) (Thuko I). The Court of Appeals rejected Thuko's claims and affirmed the district court. 2007 WL 92642, at *4. This court denied review.

         In 2008, Thuko filed his first 60-1507 motion. According to the Court of Appeals' opinion in that case, Thuko raised five claims: (1) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel; (2) the district court's failure to guide the jury and answer a jury question denied him a fair trial; (3) he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel; (4) he was denied his right to DNA testing; and (5) the State withheld exculpatory evidence. The district court dismissed the motion and Thuko appealed. Thuko v. State, No. 101, 168, 2010 WL 1253623, at *1 (Kan. App. 2010) (unpublished opinion) (Thuko II).

         The Thuko II panel rejected all of Thuko's claims except for his DNA testing claim, which the panel remanded to the district court for consideration. 2010 WL 1253623, at *1-3 (Kan. App. 2010). On remand, the district court denied Thuko's request for DNA testing, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and this court denied review. Thuko v. State, No. 106, 535, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.