Albright v. State
251 P.3d 52
| Kan. | 2011Background
- Albright was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder in 1999 and sentenced to hard 40 life; direct appeal affirmed in 2001.
- Postconviction 60-1507 motion filed March 12, 2008; district court appointed counsel and denied relief on October 14, 2008 without an evidentiary hearing.
- No timely notice of appeal from the 60-1507 denial was filed; Albright later sought to appeal out of time arguing ineffective assistance of appointed counsel.
- Court of Appeals dismissed based on Guillory; Albright petitioned for review arguing Ortiz exceptions apply to 60-1507 context where counsel was appointed.
- Supreme Court concludes Ortiz exceptions can apply to 60-1507 proceedings and remands for merits review, reversing Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Ortiz exceptions apply to 60-1507 postconviction appeals? | Albright: Ortiz exceptions extend to appointed-counsel 60-1507 appeals. | State: Ortiz exceptions apply only to direct criminal appeals and not to civil 60-1507 actions. | Yes; Ortiz-inspired standards apply, extending to 60-1507 when counsel was appointed. |
| Does Guillory bar Albright’s untimely 60-1507 appeal? | Guillory does not control where counsel was appointed and facts differ from pro se Guillory. | Guillory forecloses untimely 60-1507 appeals absent timely notice regardless of counsel appointment. | Guillory does not bar here; appointment of counsel and underlying deficiencies permit jurisdiction. |
| Does Brown require recognizing a right to effective counsel in 60-1507 appeals? | Brown creates a right to effective assistance of appointed counsel; failure justifies late appeal. | Patton may limit Ortiz-based relief, but Brown remains supportive of effective-counsel remedy. | Yes; Brown's effective-counsel principle applies to 60-1507 proceedings. |
| Did Patton undercut applying Ortiz/ Brown to 60-1507? | Patton does not foreclose applying Ortiz-like analysis to 60-1507; it clarifies direct-appeal context. | Patton narrows Ortiz to direct criminal appeals; 60-1507 is distinct and not controlled by Patton. | Patton does not bar application of Ortiz/ Brown to 60-1507. |
| What is the proper remedy for deficient appellate counsel in 60-1507? | Out-of-time appeal permitted where counsel failed to file; Flores-Ortega standard applied. | Remedies limited to jurisdictional considerations; focus on adequate briefing merits. | Remand to Court of Appeals for merits; jurisdiction recognized due to ineffective-counsel outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200 (2008) (clarifies Ortiz exceptions are narrowly drawn for direct appeals)
- Guillory v. State, 285 Kan. 223 (2007) (Ortiz exceptions do not save pro se untimely 60-1507 appeals; appointment context matters)
- Brown v. State, 278 Kan. 481 (2004) (recognized right to effective assistance of counsel in 60-1507 when counsel appointed)
- Kargus v. State, 284 Kan. 908 (2007) (adopts Flores-Ortega test for ineffective assistance in postconviction context)
- Ortiz v. State, 230 Kan. 733 (1982) (three exceptions for untimely direct appeals)
- State v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (standard for ineffective assistance when counsel fails to file an appeal)
- Robertson v. State, 288 Kan. 217 (2009) (reaffirms duty to provide effective appellate counsel in 60-1507)