Dulaney v. State, 122681

Background

Low-speed police chase ended when Dulaney crashed into a light pole; officers searched him and the towed vehicle and found methamphetamine, paraphernalia, and multiple firearms.
Dulaney was charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, fleeing/attempting to elude, criminal use of a weapon, possession of drug paraphernalia, and related traffic offenses; acquitted of criminal possession of a firearm by a felon.
Appointed counsel Allen Angst represented Dulaney throughout; the client and counsel had repeated communication problems and Dulaney repeatedly sought new counsel; the trial court denied motions to withdraw.
Jury convicted Dulaney on major counts; at sentencing the presentence report included a six-month firearm enhancement under a special rule although the jury made no special finding of firearm use. The court imposed a controlling sentence of 123 months.
Dulaney filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion claiming ineffective assistance/conflict of interest; the district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied relief, and Dulaney appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dulaney's sentence is illegal because a six-month firearm enhancement was applied without a jury special finding	The six-month enhancement was added improperly because the jury did not make the required firearm finding	State conceded error and agreed remand for resentencing without the enhancement was appropriate	Sentence is illegal; vacated and remanded for resentencing without the six-month enhancement
Whether counsel was ineffective / had an actual conflict of interest due to poor communication, requiring relief without proof of prejudice	Dulaney argued Angst labored under an active conflict stemming from the deteriorated attorney-client relationship, warranting presumed prejudice under Mickens	State and trial court argued Angst competently represented Dulaney; communication problems did not create a constitutional conflict and Dulaney failed to show prejudice	District court did not err; counsel not ineffective and no actual conflict shown; convictions affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (conflict-of-interest framework; defendant must show conflict actually affected representation absent timely objection)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance plus prejudice)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (narrow exception allowing presumed prejudice when counsel effectively absent at a critical stage)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (timely objection requirement for conflicts when representing multiple defendants)
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978) (automatic reversal when counsel forced to represent codefendants over objection unless no conflict)
Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (1981) (discussion of what constitutes an apparent conflict)
Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986) (ethical breaches do not automatically equal Sixth Amendment denial)
State v. Obregon, 309 Kan. 1267, 444 P.3d 331 (2019) (remedy: remand for resentencing when enhancement improperly applied without jury finding)
State v. Hambright, 310 Kan. 408, 447 P.3d 972 (2019) (defendant may raise sentencing errors for the first time on appeal)
State v. Sartin, 310 Kan. 367, 446 P.3d 1068 (2019) (illegal-sentence review is a question of law subject to unlimited appellate review)
White v. State, 308 Kan. 491, 421 P.3d 718 (2018) (standards of review for 60-1507 proceedings and evidentiary hearings)
Fuller v. State, 303 Kan. 478, 363 P.3d 373 (2015) (appellate review de novo of legal conclusions from 60-1507 hearings)
State v. Galaviz, 296 Kan. 168, 291 P.3d 62 (2012) (discussing the Mickens reservation regarding personal or financial conflicts)