Opinion
No. 106,694.
2013-10-25
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Joel D. BUTLER, Appellant.
Appeal from Saline District Court; Jared B. Johnson, Judge. Joel D. Butler, appellant pro se, was on the briefs for appellant. Ellen Mitchell, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
Appeal from Saline District Court; Jared B. Johnson, Judge.
Joel D. Butler, appellant pro se, was on the briefs for appellant. Ellen Mitchell, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM:
In 1992, a jury convicted Joel Butler of felony murder and aggravated robbery. This court affirmed Butler's convictions and sentences on direct appeal State v. Butler, 257 Kan. 1043, 897 P .2d 1007 (1995), modified257 Kan. 1110, 916 P.2d 1 (1996). Butler also unsuccessfully sought relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel through a K.S.A. 60–1507 motion. Butler v. State, No. 93,564, 2006 WL 399141 (Kan.App.2006) (unpublished opinion).
In this proceeding, Butler appeals from the district court's summary denial of his motion for relief from judgment, filed pursuant to K.S.A.2010 Supp. 60–260(b)(4) and (6), K.S.A. 60–2606, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006). In denying Butler's motion, the district court determined the motion was “clearly an attack on [Butler's] conviction” and that Butler's reliance on 60–260(b) and 60–2606 to support that attack was “misplaced and inappropriate.” In light of our recent decision in State v. Mitchell, 297 Kan. 118, Syl. ¶ 1, 298 P.3d 349 (2013), we affirm the district court's decision.
In Mitchell, we held that “K.S.A.2012 Supp. 60–260(b)(4) does not provide a procedure for a criminal defendant to obtain postconviction relief from his or her conviction or sentence.” 297 Kan. at 118–19. In doing so, we reaffirmed a prior holding from this court designating K.S.A. 60–1507 as the exclusive statutory remedy to collaterally attack a criminal conviction and sentence. 297 Kan. at 121–23; see Smith v. State, 199 Kan. 132, 135, 427 P.2d 625 (1967) (holding K.S.A. 60–1507 is “the exclusive statutory remedy authorizing a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court of general jurisdiction to make a collateral attack upon the sentence in a criminal case, and that K.S.A. 60–260 is not available ... for this purpose”). Even though the district court did not have the benefit of Mitchell when it denied Butler's motion, its decision is consistent with Mitchell. Accordingly, we affirm that decision.
Affirmed.