Ray J. Kraklio v. Kent Simmons
16-1392
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 13, 2017Background
- In 2003 Kraklio pled guilty to three fraudulent-practice felonies, received concurrent ten-year sentences suspended and was placed on five years probation for each count with restitution ordered.
- Kraklio filed a pro se appeal; Simmons was appointed and pursued an ineffective-assistance claim based on statutes of limitations. On appeal counts 4 and 5 were preserved for possible PCR relief; count 6 was affirmed. Procedendo issued April 25, 2005.
- Probation supervision resumed in 2005; Kraklio repeatedly refused to pay restitution. A 2008 revocation resulted in prison, but Simmons secured vacation of convictions on counts 4 and 5 in PCR, voiding substantial restitution obligations.
- In March 2009 the court reconsidered and reinstated suspended sentences and probation; Kraklio later faced another revocation. At the 2010 revocation hearing, the court ruled Kraklio’s remaining probation had expired and discharged him from probation.
- In October 2014 Kraklio sued Simmons for legal malpractice, alleging Simmons failed to ensure Kraklio was discharged from probation (which Kraklio says should have occurred April 17, 2008). The district court granted summary judgment for Simmons relying on Barker v. Capotosto (requiring prior relief from a conviction to bring malpractice claims against criminal defense counsel).
- The court of appeals reversed, holding Kraklio obtained the necessary prior relief when the revocation court declared his probation had expired, and remanded for further proceedings; a separate dissent would have affirmed summary judgment because the 2010 ruling did not explicitly grant the precise relief Kraklio alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a criminal-malpractice plaintiff must obtain prior relief from the underlying conviction before suing for attorney negligence on sentencing/probation matters | Kraklio: prior relief from the sentencing/probation defect (discharge from probation) suffices; he obtained that relief at the 2010 revocation hearing | Simmons: Barker requires relief from the conviction itself (or otherwise bars malpractice claims absent exoneration) | Majority: prior judicial relief addressing the sentencing/probation issue suffices; summary judgment reversed and case remanded |
| Whether the district court correctly applied Barker v. Capotosto to bar the malpractice claim | Kraklio: Barker is distinguishable because his claim concerns probation/sentencing, not the validity of the conviction | Simmons: Barker controls and prevents malpractice suits until relief from conviction is obtained | Majority: Barker’s policy rationale supports allowing suits after relief on the specific sentencing issue; district court erred |
| Whether Kraklio actually obtained the relief he pleaded (probation discharge effective April 17, 2008) | Kraklio: the revocation court’s 2010 ruling that probation had expired fulfilled the prior-relief requirement | Simmons: the 2010 ruling did not find the probation expired on the date Kraklio claimed; thus Kraklio failed to obtain the relief he sought | Dissent: plaintiff failed to obtain the precise relief he alleged; summary judgment should stand |
| Whether the appellate court should affirm on alternative grounds not briefed below | N/A | N/A | Court declined to affirm on alternative grounds because they were not raised and briefed by the parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Capotosto, 875 N.W.2d 157 (Iowa 2016) (adopts a relief-from-conviction prerequisite to malpractice claims against criminal defense counsel and discusses scope of exoneration rule)
- Trobaugh v. Sondag, 668 N.W.2d 577 (Iowa 2003) (endorses requiring a defendant to achieve relief from a conviction before bringing malpractice claims)
- Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 355 P.3d 667 (Kan. 2015) (Kansas analysis endorsing relief/exoneration approach to criminal-malpractice claims)
- Garcia v. Ball, 363 P.3d 399 (Kan. 2015) (holds prior relief from an unlawful sentence satisfies the prerequisite for a malpractice suit challenging post-sentencing matters)
- Canaan v. Bartee, 72 P.3d 911 (Kan. 2003) (policy discussion supporting exoneration/relief prerequisite for criminal malpractice suits)