Fuller v. State, 363 P.3d 373

Background

Raymond Fuller was convicted by a jury of rape, aggravated sexual battery, and aggravated burglary; his defense was that the sexual contact was consensual.
Trial counsel Quentin Pittman conducted a direct examination of Fuller using pointed, cross-examination–style questions that Fuller later said left him humiliated and appeared to join the prosecution.
After conviction, Fuller filed a pro se motion for new trial; at the hearing Pittman defended his own trial choices and opposed many of Fuller’s pro se assertions, leading to a clear conflict.
Fuller raised multiple ineffective-assistance claims in a K.S.A. 60-1507 petition; the district court held an evidentiary hearing on three claims (direct exam, motion-for-new-trial advocacy, two jurors) and denied relief.
The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded limited issues for rehearing with conflict-free counsel.

Issues

Issue	Fuller’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether Pittman’s cross‑examination–style direct examination was constitutionally deficient under Strickland	Pittman’s questioning effectively attacked Fuller, was unprepared, and deprived Fuller of advocacy	Questions were a deliberate strategy to ‘‘take away the sting’’ and elicited strong denials; context matters	Not deficient — trial strategy reasonable; performance met constitutional minimum
Whether counsel’s conduct on direct exam amounted to a complete denial of counsel (Cronic) or created a conflict (Mickens)	The style transformed counsel into a second prosecutor and denied Fuller representation at a critical stage	No complete denial occurred; counsel remained advocate and had strategic justification	No Cronic violation; no Mickens personal‑interest conflict established for direct exam
Whether failure to call a witness to testify that the victim was a "flirt/tease" was ineffective assistance	Witness would impeach victim’s credibility and support consent defense	Testimony would be irrelevant or inadmissible (rape‑shield rationale and lack of materiality)	Not ineffective — proposed testimony inadmissible/irrelevant; no prejudice shown
Whether Pittman’s advocacy against Fuller’s pro se motion for new trial created a conflict requiring appointment of new counsel and relief	Pittman directly opposed Fuller at the critical motion hearing, creating an obvious conflict and effectively leaving Fuller unrepresented	At the time, judge and court relied on counsel’s explanations as strategic; issues should be litigated via 60‑1507	Conflict existed; remedy: remand limited to hearing on pro se motion issues not already adjudicated adversely, with conflict‑free counsel appointed

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for deficient performance and prejudice)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presumed prejudice where counsel wholly fails at a critical stage)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (U.S. 2002) (conflict‑of‑interest framework and subcategories)
State v. Sharkey, 299 Kan. 87 (Kan. 2014) (trial judge must inquire/appoint conflict‑free counsel when conflict apparent at pro se new‑trial hearing)
Sola‑Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875 (Kan. 2014) (three‑category structure for ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. Galaviz, 296 Kan. 168 (Kan. 2013) (discussion of ineffective assistance categories and standards)
State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 624 (Kan. 2004) (rules on concurrent representation and remedying conflicts)