Mashaney v. Board of Indigents' Defense Services
302 Kan. 625
| Kan. | 2015Background
- Mashaney was charged in 2003 with aggravated sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties; an amended count was added.
- Trial counsel was Sweet-McKinnon; Mashaney was convicted after a second jury trial in 2004 and sentenced to 442 months.
- He unsuccessfully challenged the conviction for ineffective assistance; a 60-1507 motion led to relief in 2011.
- Mashaney entered an Alford plea in 2012 to lesser charges; the State dismissed original charges; he was later sentenced to 72 months but released after serving more than that.
- In January 2012 he sued his trial and appellate counsel and BIDS for legal malpractice, alleging the malpractice caused wrongful conviction and imprisonment.
- District court dismissed, ruling BIDS lacked capacity to be sued and the plea foreclosed relief; Court of Appeals and Supreme Court considered whether actual innocence was required and whether accrual/timing and BIDS liability applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can BIDS be sued for legal malpractice? | BIDS has duty to provide and supervise counsel, so it can be liable. | BIDS lacks capacity to sue or be sued under statute. | BIDS lacks capacity; dismissed as party. |
| When does a legal malpractice claim accrue in this context? | Accrual follows exoneration; timely under 2-year limit after relief. | Accrual should align with ongoing criminal proceedings or other triggers. | Accrual occurs at relief from conviction based on ineffective assistance; timely filed within 2 years. |
| Must a defendant prove actual innocence to pursue legal malpractice arising from a criminal case? | Actual innocence should not be required; exoneration suffices for accrual. | Actual innocence is required to bring a malpractice claim. | Kansas does not require proof of actual innocence. |
| Did Mashaney's Alford plea bar the malpractice claim? | Alford plea does not preclude relief where exoneration occurred. | Alford plea bars action due to later guilt or lack of innocence. | Alford plea does not automatically bar the action; accrual occurred earlier upon exoneration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116, 72 P.3d 911 (2003) (exoneration rule; accrual tied to relief from conviction)
- Pancake House, Inc. v. Redmond, 239 Kan. 83, 716 P.2d 575 (1986) (Pancake House accrual theories for legal malpractice)
- Holder v. Kansas Steel Built, Inc., 224 Kan. 406, 582 P.2d 244 (1978) (true test of accrual: when plaintiff could first file suit)
- Wiley v. County of San Diego, 19 Cal.4th 532, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 (Cal. 2001) (actual innocence debate; antedates Kansas approach)
- Noske v. Friedberg, 656 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. 2003) (date of conviction relief triggers accrual)
- Cira v. Dillinger, 903 So.2d 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (postconviction relief does not necessarily exonerate)