Grossman v. State, 300 Kan. 1058

Background

Grossman pleaded no contest in 2007 to violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act and received 36 months' probation with a 53-month underlying prison term; probation prohibited illegal drug use.
In 2009 the ISO filed multiple warrants alleging repeated probation violations; at the revocation hearing Grossman's counsel admitted the allegations and said Grossman would present mitigation for reinstatement.
Grossman personally admitted the violations multiple times during the dispositional phase; the court revoked probation and ordered service of the underlying sentence.
On direct appeal Grossman argued due process error for lack of an inquiry into whether his admission/waiver was knowing; the Court of Appeals rejected that claim.
In 2011 Grossman filed a pro se K.S.A. 60-1507 motion alleging his revocation counsel was ineffective for ignoring instructions to contest the ISO accusations and request an evidentiary hearing; the district court denied the motion after a preliminary hearing and the Court of Appeals affirmed, invoking res judicata.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, held res judicata did not bar the ineffective-assistance claim but affirmed denial of relief because Grossman’s repeated admissions defeated any claim of counsel-induced prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Grossman's 60-1507 ineffective-assistance claim	Grossman: claim was not raised on direct appeal and could not typically be raised there, so res judicata does not apply	State: claim is the same issue recharacterized and thus precluded by res judicata	Court: Res judicata did not apply because the present ineffective-assistance claim differs from the due-process claim on direct appeal and could not ordinarily be raised on direct appeal
Whether Grossman stated facts sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing under K.S.A. 60-1507	Grossman: counsel admitted to acting contrary to his instructions; an evidentiary hearing would reveal supporting evidence	State: record (transcript) shows both counsel and Grossman repeatedly admitted violations, so no hearing warranted	Court: No evidentiary hearing required; admissions in the record are dispositive and Grossman failed to show a substantial issue
Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the revocation hearing	Grossman: counsel ignored instructions to contest allegations and to request a hearing, constituting ineffective assistance under Strickland	State: even if counsel erred, Grossman’s own admissions prevent showing prejudice	Court: Ineffective-assistance claim fails because Grossman repeatedly admitted the violations, so he cannot show prejudice
Standard of review for denial after preliminary hearing	Grossman: N/A (challenging denial of hearing)	State: denial was proper based on files and transcript	Court: De novo review applies when denial is based on motion, files, and records after a preliminary hearing; court affirmed denial on the merits

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (framework for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims)
Holmes v. State, 292 Kan. 271 (2011) (movant must present more than conclusory allegations to obtain evidentiary hearing)
Holt v. State, 290 Kan. 491 (2010) (discusses second/successive 60-1507 motions and relief limits)
State v. May, 293 Kan. 858 (2012) (correctness of lower court affirmed if right for any reason)
State v. Kingsley, 299 Kan. 896 (2015) (res judicata bar for issues actually raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Neer, 247 Kan. 137 (1990) (explaining res judicata in appellate context)
Rowland v. State, 289 Kan. 1076 (2009) (ineffective-assistance claims related to matters decided on direct appeal may still be raised collaterally)
State v. Dull, 298 Kan. 832 (2014) (ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily not decided on direct appeal)
City of Wichita v. Sealpak Co., 279 Kan. 799 (2005) (admissions against interest are highly probative and can override other factors)