State v. Proctor - Kansas Judicial Branch

eturn to prison mandatory even if criminal receives probation on the new felony). In
turn, the constitutionality of the postrelease supervision scheme could not be challenged
on an appeal from the new felony regardless of how sensible that might be in developing
a complete record of historical facts necessary to adjudicate the issue.
Defendants could not rely on habeas corpus relief under K.S.A. 60-1507 to attack
their actual incarceration for life following the commission of a new felony while on
supervised release. Because the incarceration arises from the punishment imposed for the
original sexual offense and not the new felony, the attack could be considered untimely.
See K.S.A. 60-1507(f). While a court might afford relief from the time bar, nothing
would require that result. Federal habeas corpus offers a similarly rickety vehicle. Federal
courts may deny habeas review to state prisoners based on procedural defaults, such as
untimely or successive filings, in their state collateral attacks. See Martinez v. Ryan, 566
U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1309, 1316, 1320, 182 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2012) (noting procedural
default rule and limited equitable exception if counsel for prisoner in initial state
collateral proceeding proved ineffective and not merely negligent in failing to raise a
substantial claim of ineffectiveness of prisoner's trial counsel).
Proctor could not attack the constitutionality of the lifetime postrelease
supervision in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(1), which
may be filed "at any time." State v. Edwards, 281 Kan. 1334, Syl. 1, 2, 135 P.3d 1251
(2006) (defining illegal sentence and holding it does not include "a sentence [that] fails to
conform to constitutional requirements").
In short, while we share the State's expressed concern about the indefiniteness of
Proctor's challenge—events bearing directly on the resolution of the challenge have yet to
take place—we also must conclude that Proctor would have no certain path for asserting
his legal claim at a juncture when the essential historical facts will have become fixed
rather than conjectural. Proctor cannot be required to consign his assertion that life in
11