Kulhanek v. State
560 S.W.3d 94
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellant Brandon Kulhanek pleaded guilty to second-degree murder (pursuant to a plea deal reducing first-degree murder and dismissing an accomplice charge) and was sentenced to life imprisonment consecutive to an existing term.
- At plea, Kulhanek admitted striking and strangling his cellmate after a confrontation; the court questioned him and he stated satisfaction with counsel and admitted the elements of second-degree murder.
- At sentencing the State read an un-authenticated letter purportedly written by Kulhanek boasting of the killing and gang affiliation; trial counsel objected to its consideration but did not formally object to its reading.
- Kulhanek filed a Rule 24.035 motion alleging ineffective assistance: counsel failed to (1) advise him of a voluntary manslaughter theory (lesser-included) and (2) advise him of a viable self-defense theory, and (3) failed to object to the State reading the letter at sentencing.
- The motion court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing; Kulhanek appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed denial as to the self-defense and sentencing-letter claims, reversed as to failure-to-discuss voluntary manslaughter, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not discussing voluntary manslaughter | Counsel failed to investigate/explain a viable lesser-included defense; had he known, he would have proceeded to trial | Record (plea colloquy) shows he was satisfied with counsel and admitted elements, refuting claim | Reversed: pleadings not refuted by record; remand for evidentiary hearing on whether counsel discussed/investigated voluntary manslaughter |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not discussing self-defense | Counsel failed to advise of self-defense; would have proceeded to trial | Self-defense is a common concept and the facts (victim rendered unconscious then executed) do not support it | Affirmed: record shows self-defense was not a viable theory; no prejudice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to State reading a letter at sentencing | Failure to object allowed prejudicial, un-authenticated evidence to influence sentencing | State contends it could authenticate the letter; trial court speculated counsel may have had strategy | Affirmed: although trial court speculated strategy without support, defendant did not allege the State could not authenticate the letter, so no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiggins v. State, 480 S.W.3d 379 (Mo. App. 2015) (standards for evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance after guilty plea)
- Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. banc 2011) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in plea context)
- Payne v. State, 488 S.W.3d 161 (Mo. App. 2016) (definition of voluntary manslaughter as murder minus sudden passion from adequate cause)
- Redmond v. State, 937 S.W.2d 205 (Mo. banc 1996) (heated argument and victim-initiated battery can support manslaughter instruction)
- Muhammad v. State, 367 S.W.3d 659 (Mo. App. 2012) (self-defense is a nontechnical defense; knowledge by layperson relevant)
- Rush v. State, 366 S.W.3d 663 (Mo. App. 2012) (prejudice at sentencing requires reasonable probability of lesser sentence but for counsel's errors)