ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Kansas

2022However, the appellate court will only 5 remand a case to the district court in instances where the ineffective assistance of counsel claim demonstrates merit. 239 Kan. at 120 (quoting State v. Shepherd, 232 Kan. 614, 620 , 657 P.2d 1112 [1983]).

2018See State v. Wright , 305 Kan. 1176 , 1180, 390 P.3d 899 (2017) ("We therefore retain appellate jurisdiction, in the same manner that we retain it when we remand to district court for examination of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under State v. Van Cleave , 239 Kan. 117 , 120-21, 716 P.2d 580 [1986].").

2024See Chamberlin, 236 Kan. at 657 (noting defendants must prove counsel prejudiced their defense to sustain an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

2005Citing to Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650, 657 , 694 P.2d 468 (1985), the majority apparently found counsel's performance deficient but not prejudicial under the second part of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.

2026As a result, when a defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for the first time on direct appeal, appellate courts have three options: (1) Follow the general rule and refuse to address the issue, allowing the defendant to pursue relief through a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion; (2) rule on the merits in the "extremely rare" cases that there is a sufficient record to do so; or (3) remand the case for a Van Cleave hearing "so that facts relevant to determination of the legal issue may be developed and an evidentiary record established." Rowland, 289 Kan. at 1084-85 ; see State v. Reed,

2021See 308 Kan. at 304 (treating a colorable claim of actual innocence as an exceptional circumstance); Rowland v. State, 289 Kan. 1076, 1087 , 219 P.3d 1212 (2009) (allowing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a first 60-1507 motion when the issue had not been raised on direct appeal).

2024See Trotter v. State, 288 Kan. 112 , Syl. ¶ 10, 200 P.3d 1236 (2009) ("Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as a general rule, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

2024See Trotter v. State, 288 Kan. 112 , Syl. ¶ 10, 200 P.3d 1236 (2009) ("Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as a general rule, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

2011See, e.g., Lujan v. State, 270 Kan. 163 , 14 P.3d 424 (2000); State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 119-21 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986).

2011See, e.g., Lujan v. State, 270 Kan. 163 , 14 P.3d 424 (2000); State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 119-21 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986).

2021When, as in this case, the district court decides to summarily deny a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, our court conducts a de novo review to determine whether the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively establish that the movant is not entitled to relief. 300 Kan. at 881 . 3 To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the movant must satisfy the constitutional standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2021An ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on deficient performance is subject to the Strickland test. 300 Kan. at 882 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2024As the United States Supreme Court has held, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim can be denied "solely on that ground if the defendant failed to establish that [the movant] suffered prejudice." Edgar v. State, 294 Kan. 828, 843 , 283 P.3d 152 (2012) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ).

2024As the United States Supreme Court has held, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim can be denied "solely on that ground if the defendant failed to establish that [the movant] suffered prejudice." Edgar v. State, 294 Kan. 828, 843 , 283 P.3d 152 (2012) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ).

2024"Only under extraordinary circumstances, i.e., where there are no factual issues and the . . . ineffective assistance of counsel test can be applied as a matter of law based upon the appellate record, may an appellate court consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim without a district court determination of the issue." Wimbley v. State, 292 Kan. 796, 807 , 275 P.3d 35 (2011).

2024"Only under extraordinary circumstances, i.e., where there are no factual issues and the . . . ineffective assistance of counsel test can be applied as a matter of law based upon the appellate record, may an appellate court consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim without a district court determination of the issue." Wimbley v. State, 292 Kan. 796, 807 , 275 P.3d 35 (2011).

2022See Bricker, 292 Kan. at 246 ("[T]here is a reasonable probability that but for [counsel's] errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.").

2013See State v. Bricker, 292 Kan. 239, 250 , 252 P.3d 118 (2011) (stating that where defendant failed to show counsel’s performance was deficient, court need not consider prejudice prong).

2017See Wilkinson, 269 Kan. at 608 ("The basic elements of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.").

2015See Wilkinson, 269 Kan. at 608 ("The basic elements of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.").

2024An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is analyzed using a two-part test pronounced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2024An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is analyzed using a two-part test pronounced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2021But we may consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on appeal when there are no factual issues and the ineffective assistance of counsel test can be applied as a matter of law based on the record. 309 Kan. at 483-84 .

2020Moreover, assuming for purposes of argument that Amaro's attorney was deficient in his performance, Amaro has not shown the second prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel test: "prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result absent the deficient performance." Salary, 309 Kan. at 483 .

2013See Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428, 445 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003) (district court’s fact findings regarding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must have substantial support- in the evidence).

2013See Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428, 445 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003) (district court’s fact findings regarding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must have substantial support- in the evidence).

2014Ed. 2d 674 , reh. denied 467 U.S. 1267 *70 (1984).

2013Ed. 2d 674 , reh. denied 467 U.S. 1267 (1984).

2024See Sprague, 303 Kan. at 427 (upholding dismissal of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when the movant fails to "proffer any evidentiary basis that his counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient").

2020Our Supreme Court has defined reasonable probability as "'a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 426 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015).

2022App. 2018) (unpublished opinion) (examining an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to investigate an alibi witness); see also State v. Thomas, 26 Kan.

2003State v. Rice, 261 Kan. 567, 598-99 , 932 P.2d 981 (1997).” State v. Thomas, 26 Kan.

2006The purpose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “is to ensure a defendant’s constitutionally protected right to a fair trial.” Greene, 272 Kan. at 777 .

2002See State v. Greene, 272 Kan. 772 , 37 P.3d 633 (2001) (appellate court addressed claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal after previously remanding to trial court for consideration of claim at request of appellate counsel while retaining jurisdiction over appeal); State v. Orr, 262 Kan. 312 , 940 P.2d 42 (1997).

1995Additionally, in evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “[t]he appellate court places much deference upon the findings of the trial judge who saw all the proceedings first-hand as they happened. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Humphrey, 252 Kan. 6, 25, 845 P.2d 592 (1992).

1995Additionally, in evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “[t]he appellate court places much deference upon the findings of the trial judge who saw all the proceedings first-hand as they happened. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Humphrey, 252 Kan. 6, 25, 845 P.2d 592 (1992).