Darnell v. State, 123725

Michael Paul Darnell was convicted of aggravated burglary, battery, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated sexual battery after attacking a woman; he raised voluntary intoxication at trial and did not dispute being the assailant.
Darnell testified in his own defense; on cross-examination he denied ever being physical with a woman, after which the State impeached him with a prior domestic battery conviction admitted through cross-examination after defense counsel conceded impeachment was permissible.
Jury convicted Darnell and he was sentenced to 285 months and lifetime postrelease supervision for aggravated sexual battery; direct appeals were unsuccessful.
Darnell filed a pro se K.S.A. 60-1507 motion arguing trial counsel C. Richard Comfort was ineffective for failing to prepare him to testify and failing to warn what would "open the door" to admission of the prior conviction.
The district court summarily denied the motion finding no prejudice because intent (the key issue) was supported by substantial evidence; no evidentiary hearing was held.
On appeal the court acknowledged counsel’s performance was deficient for not preparing Darnell, but held Darnell failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome (no prejudice), and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Darnell's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to prepare Darnell to testify and warn him what would allow impeachment with his prior domestic battery conviction?	Comfort failed to advise what testimony would "open the door," harming Darnell's credibility central to his intoxication defense.	Witnesses must tell the truth; it was obvious false or misleading testimony can be impeached, and admission of the prior conviction did not change the outcome because intent was supported by substantial evidence.	Court found counsel's performance deficient but concluded Darnell failed to prove prejudice — no reasonable probability of a different verdict — so no evidentiary hearing and denial affirmed.

State v. Adams, 311 Kan. 569 (establishes district court options when handling K.S.A. 60-1507 motions and standard of review)
Beauclair v. State, 308 Kan. 284 (standard for reviewing summary denial of postconviction relief)
Thuko v. State, 310 Kan. 74 (movant must plead facts or rely on record to warrant evidentiary hearing)
Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875 (when evidentiary hearing is required for postconviction claims)
Khalil-Alsalaami v. State, 313 Kan. 472 (Strickland standards for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Credell v. Bodison, 818 F. Supp. 2d 928 (trial counsel ineffective where counsel was ignorant of evidence rules and failed to advise defendant about impeachment risks)
Perrero v. State, 990 S.W.2d 896 (trial counsel ineffective for failing to prepare witness whose testimony opened door to damaging prior convictions)