Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875

Background

Sola-Morales was charged with second-degree murder after Frank Sibat was shot; he admitted shooting but claimed self-defense and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 216 months.
Defense counsel repeatedly obtained continuances; Sola-Morales alleges counsel told him the State requested those continuances and that counsel withdrew his pro se speedy-trial motion without his knowledge.
At trial defense sought to call Peterson for victim-reputation evidence and Martinez to impeach State witness Medina; the court excluded testimony about specific prior acts and defense counsel did not call Peterson or elicit Martinez’s testimony.
Sola-Morales filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance: (1) failure to object to involuntary manslaughter instruction, (2) inadequate investigation/failure to call Martinez and Peterson, and (3) counsel’s dishonesty re: continuances (conflict of interest).
The district court denied relief after a preliminary hearing without an evidentiary hearing; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kansas Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the involuntary manslaughter instruction	Sola-Morales: omission deleted reckless variant and was prejudicial	State: no prejudice because jury convicted of voluntary manslaughter and never reached involuntary manslaughter instruction	No evidentiary hearing needed; court affirmed no prejudice (denial upheld)
2. Whether counsel failed to investigate/call Martinez to impeach Medina	Sola-Morales: Martinez would have undermined Medina’s corroboration and aided self-defense	State: witness choices were strategic and nonprejudicial	No prejudice from Martinez; claim denied without hearing; but trial counsel’s failure to call Peterson may warrant hearing
3. Whether counsel failed to investigate/call Peterson for reputation testimony	Sola-Morales: Peterson’s testimony about victim’s violent reputation could support self-defense	State: testimony would not change outcome given trial evidence of victim being beaten and shot	Record not conclusive; remand for evidentiary hearing on Peterson’s expected testimony and counsel’s investigation
4. Whether counsel’s alleged dishonesty about continuances created a conflict of interest relieving Strickland prejudice burden	Sola-Morales: counsel lied about who requested continuances and withdrew his pro se motion without consent, suggesting counsel’s self-interest and a breakdown in loyalty	State: continuances can be requested by counsel; no Strickland prejudice shown	Court finds the record raises potential conflict under Mickens reservation; district court erred by not inquiring—remand for evidentiary hearing to determine if an actual conflict existed and the proper prejudice standard

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (conflict-of-interest categories and the Mickens reservation regarding personal/financial conflicts)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (standard for conflicts arising from concurrent representation)
Fischer v. State, 296 Kan. 808 (2013) (procedures for K.S.A. 60-1507: summary denial, preliminary hearing, or full evidentiary hearing)
Barr v. State, 287 Kan. 190 (2008) (de novo review when district court denies 60-1507 after a preliminary hearing based only on motion, files, and records)
State v. Bafford, 255 Kan. 888 (1994) (attorney may request continuances without specific client consultation)
State v. Hines, 269 Kan. 698 (2000) (exception where defendant and counsel openly disagree about continuance beyond speedy-trial limit)
State v. Cheatham, 296 Kan. 417 (2013) (discussion of conflicts rooted in counsel’s personal/business interests and applicable standards)