Mashaney v. Board of Indigents' Defense Services, 313 P.3d 64

Jason Mashaney was convicted in 2004 of aggravated criminal sodomy and two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child; he was represented by appointed trial counsel Sweet‑McKinnon and appellate counsel Girard‑Brady.
After direct appeal failed, Mashaney obtained relief on a K.S.A. 60‑1507 motion (ineffective appellate counsel) in April 2011; the district court set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial.
Before retrial, Mashaney entered Alford pleas to amended charges (two counts attempted aggravated battery and one count aggravated endangering of a child) and received a 72‑month sentence, less than time already served; he was released.
In January 2012 Mashaney sued BIDS, Sweet‑McKinnon, and Girard‑Brady for legal malpractice, alleging negligent representation caused wrongful imprisonment and asserting actual innocence.
The district court dismissed BIDS for lack of capacity to be sued, granted judgment on the pleadings/judgment for the individual attorneys on statute‑of‑limitations and failure to state a claim grounds (holding Mashaney could not prove actual innocence given his guilty plea).
On appeal the court (1) affirmed dismissal of BIDS; (2) held Mashaney’s malpractice claims accrued only after postconviction relief (so his suit was timely under Canaan); (3) held a malpractice plaintiff must prove actual innocence to prevail; (4) concluded Mashaney’s Alford plea foreclosed proving actual innocence on the record and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Capacity: Can BIDS be sued?	BIDS is an entity subject to suit for malpractice liability.	BIDS is a subordinate state agency without statutory capacity to sue or be sued.	BIDS lacks capacity; dismissal affirmed.
Statute of limitations: When did malpractice claim accrue under K.S.A. 60‑513?	Accrual occurred only after postconviction relief (April 2011), so the 2012 suit is timely.	Claims accrued earlier (upon conviction/sentence or finality of direct appeal), so suit is time‑barred.	Accrual requires postconviction exoneration under Canaan; Mashaney’s suit was timely.
Necessity of actual innocence to prevail in malpractice suit	Exoneration alone (setting aside conviction and new trial) suffices to bring malpractice suit; actual innocence not required.	Plaintiff must show actual innocence to avoid awarding damages to a person who committed the crime.	Plaintiff must prove actual (factual) innocence by a preponderance to prevail.
Effect of Alford plea on ability to prove innocence	Alford plea preserves a claim because it is made while maintaining innocence; does not admit factual guilt for civil purposes.	Alford plea is a guilty plea in Kansas and operates as admission of the acts forming the charge, precluding proof of actual innocence.	Under Kansas law an Alford plea is treated as a guilty plea for evidentiary purposes; Mashaney cannot show actual innocence on the record, so dismissal affirmed.

Hopkins v. State, 237 Kan. 601 (agency subordinate to state lacks capacity to sue or be sued)
Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116 (criminal defendant must obtain postconviction relief before suing defense counsel for malpractice)
Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond, 239 Kan. 83 (four accrual rules for attorney malpractice: occurrence, damage, discovery, continuous representation)
Dearborn Animal Clinic, P.A. v. Wilson, 248 Kan. 257 (statute of limitations may not run until underlying litigation is finally determined; accrual when injury and causal link are reasonably ascertainable)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (Alford plea permissible: guilty plea may be entered while maintaining innocence if plea is knowing and voluntary)
Patrons Mut. Ins. Ass’n v. Harmon, 240 Kan. 707 (guilty plea is admission of acts charged and may be used as admission in later civil proceedings)
Wiley v. County of San Diego, 19 Cal. 4th 532 (discussing public‑policy reasons for requiring actual innocence in criminal malpractice suits)