Araujo v. State, 122860

Background

Salvador Araujo (aka “Chava”) was tried for multiple counts of rape and aggravated indecent liberties; jury convicted him on two counts tied to a basement incident where DNA (semen) from carpet matched Araujo.
Araujo claimed alternative explanations for the DNA (including a belated allegation that the victim’s mother had a sexual encounter in the basement) and presented several defenses at trial; he was sentenced to life with parole ineligibility for 25 years.
On July 21, 2016 Araujo filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel Kelly Driscoll, listing many specific faults (e.g., eliciting testimony that he stole tools, eliciting allegedly damaging immigration testimony from an aunt, inadequate cross-examination of the KBI DNA analyst and the victim, failure to request a continuance after a late defense theory, and failing to object to prosecutor remarks).
An evidentiary hearing was held where only Driscoll testified; she explained strategic choices (trial preparation, presenting a motive defense blaming the grandfather, not confronting certain child-witness inconsistencies on cross-examination, addressing the late mother-allegation during a recess, and relying on an independent DNA review).
The district court found Driscoll’s testimony credible, held her performance fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, found the claims largely strategic, and denied relief under Strickland/K.S.A. 60-1507.
On appeal the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the district court’s factual findings were supported by substantial competent evidence and concluding counsel was not constitutionally ineffective.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Overall ineffective assistance / preparation & strategy	Driscoll was unprepared and pursued poor strategy; had Araujo better prepared her about DNA theory, result would differ	Driscoll was prepared, met repeatedly with Araujo, and made reasonable strategic choices after investigation	Court: performance not objectively unreasonable; findings supported by substantial competent evidence; claim denied
Eliciting prior-bad-act (tool theft) and immigration testimony	Revealing tool theft and aunt testimony harmed jury perception and was unnecessary	Disclosure was part of agreed defense (motive: grandfather’s revenge) and aunt never said he entered illegally	Court: strategy to show motive was reasonable; aunt did not testify he was in U.S. illegally; no deficiency
Handling of DNA evidence / cross-exam of KBI analyst	Counsel failed to probe possibility DNA came from grandfather or otherwise challenge KBI testimony	Counsel conceded DNA presence but investigated (independent examiner) and avoided questions that would conflict with defense theory or open new harmful issues	Court: counsel’s handling was a strategic decision after investigation and not objectively unreasonable
Cross-examination of victim / late claim about victim’s mother / continuance	Counsel failed to confront victim’s inconsistent statements and should have sought continuance after belated mother theory	Counsel deliberately avoided certain confrontations with child witnesses, addressed inconsistencies in closing, and used recess to pursue the late mother claim rather than seek continuance	Court: those were reasonable tactical choices; no prejudice shown; no relief granted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831 (2018) (standard of review for 60-1507 denials after an evidentiary hearing)
State v. Kelly, 298 Kan. 965 (2014) (explaining the two-prong ineffective-assistance test under Kansas law)
Holt v. State, 290 Kan. 491 (2010) (movants cannot rely on conclusory assertions without evidentiary support)
State v. Lowery, 308 Kan. 1183 (2018) (issues not adequately briefed on appeal are abandoned)
State v. Arnett, 307 Kan. 648 (2018) (unbriefed issues are deemed waived)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (federal two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)