Holmes v. State
252 P.3d 573
| Kan. | 2011Background
- Holmes was convicted in 1999 of first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm; the conviction was reversed for prosecutorial misconduct and a new trial was ordered.
- In 2002 a second jury convicted Holmes of the same offenses and hard 40 sentences were imposed; this was affirmed but the sentence remanded for resentencing due to insufficient aggravation.
- On remand, the district court imposed a hard 25-year sentence, which this court affirmed in 2006.
- Holmes filed a 60-1507 postconviction motion in 2007 asserting multiple grounds, including ineffective appellate counsel during Holmes II; the district court denied without evidentiary hearing.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial; the Supreme Court granted review and reversed to remand for an evidentiary hearing on the videotape/transcript claim only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by denying 60-1507 without an evidentiary hearing. | Holmes claims entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on his appellate-counsel claims. | State argues two claims are meritless and one was resolved by Holmes II. | Yes; evidentiary hearing required for at least the videotape/transcript claim. |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge trial-counsel strategy as a nonguilt-based defense. | Holmes argues counsel should have challenged trial strategy as ineffective. | Counsel's strategy was reasonable given competing defenses. | Not for this claim; strategy deemed justifiable and not ineffective. |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to include the videotape and transcript in the appellate record. | Failure to include unredacted and redacted video/transcript prejudiced Holmes. | Holmes II and record suggested no prejudice; prior review limited by lack of record. | Remanded for evidentiary hearing to assess deficient performance and potential prejudice. |
| Whether Holmes preserved the claim of appellate counsel's failure to file a reply brief or motion for reconsideration. | Holmes raised it on appeal. | Not preserved for review and lacks merit even if preserved. | Not preserved; no merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 624 (2004) (deference to counsel; strategic choices)
- State v. White, 284 Kan. 333 (2007) (alternative defenses permitted; review under Strickland framework)
- State v. Carter, 270 Kan. 426 (2000) (non-guilt-based theories; distinguishable from guilt-based defenses)
- Baker v. State, 243 Kan. 1 (1988) (conscientious counsel; issues raised on appeal must merit review)
- Rowland v. State, 289 Kan. 1076 (2009) (ineffective assistance; prejudice inquiry when record incomplete)
- Moncla v. State, 285 Kan. 826 (2008) (width of deference to counsel in issue selection)
- In re Phelps, 204 Kan. 16 (1969) (indigent representation; standard of care)
- Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Beachner Constr. Co., 289 Kan. 1262 (2009) (recording obligations on appeal; record on appeal burden)