State v. Galaviz
291 P.3d 62
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Probation revocation proceedings against Galaviz were challenged due to his attorney Cowell also serving as guardian ad litem for the victim; Court of Appeals relied on Mickens to require adverse effect showing after no objection; record lacked clarity on whether Cowell’s guardian ad litem role continued or terminated; district court did not inquire into the conflict; Galaviz argued Jenkins mandated automatic reversal for conflict of interest; this court granted review to reconcile Jenkins with Mickens and apply the proper test.
- Court found that Galaviz has a due process right to effective assistance of counsel in probation revocation under the Fourteenth Amendment, including conflict-free representation; Mickens guides absent timely objection to require adverse effect showing rather than automatic reversal; remand was appropriate to determine if adverse effect exists.
- Court analyzed whether there was an active conflict of interest and whether automatic reversal applies; Jenkins may not control post-Mickens and requires remand to determine applicable test; remand directions include appointing new conflict-free counsel or holding a hearing on the conflict’s nature and potential reversal.
- Court concluded Kansas criminal defendants have Fourteenth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in probation revocation, with conflict-free counsel; because no objection was raised, the case falls under Mickens’ adverse effect exception or Mickens reservation, not automatic reversal; remand ordered for proper factual development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold applicability of Sixth Amendment to probation revocation | Galaviz asserts Sixth Amendment right applies to conflict-free counsel in probation revocation. | State contends framework relies on Mickens; threshold issue unsettled in record. | Threshold question resolved: due process right applies via Fourteenth Amendment; conflict-free counsel analyzed using Mickens. |
| Active conflict of interest | Cowell’s guardian ad litem role for victim created active conflict. | Record insufficient to show concurrent representation or confidential information; no waiver. | Active conflict established; district court duty to inquire acknowledged. |
| Automatic reversal vs adverse-effect test post-Mickens | Jenkins automatic reversal should apply due to conflict. | Mickens requires adverse-effect show absent timely objection; Jenkins overruled to extent inconsistent. | Automatic reversal not mandated; apply Mickens subcategories (adverse effect or reservation) with remand for development. |
| Proper test to apply (concurrent vs successive; objection status) | Jenkins implies automatic reversal irrespective of objection or timing. | Mickens clarifies subcategories; record insufficient to determine concurrent vs successive. | Record insufficient to categorize; remand to determine applicable Mickens subcategory. |
| Remedy and remand scope | Exceptional circumstances justify remand to obtain conflict-free representation. | Need for evidentiary hearing; avoid premature reversal. | Remand to district court with directions to appoint conflict-free counsel or conduct conflict-hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (U.S. (2002)) (defines Mickens subcategories: automatic reversal, adverse effect, and reservation; duty to inquire doctrine)
- Jenkins v. State, 257 Kan. 1074 (Kan. 1995) (auto-reversal under Holloway; later reconciled with Mickens)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. (1978)) (automatic reversal for joint representation conflicts with timely objection)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. (1980)) (adverse effect exception; duty to inquire sua sponte)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. (1973)) (probation revocation due process; right to counsel under due process)
- Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (U.S. (1981)) (right to counsel in probation revocation; informs reliance on conflicts rules)
- State v. Adams, 284 Kan. 109 (Kan. 2007) (discusses adverse-effect approach post-Mickens in Kansas)
- Boldridge v. State, 289 Kan. 618 (Kan. 2009) (discusses conflict waivers and adverse effects in Kansas)
- Gleason, 277 Kan. 624 (Kan. 2004) (conflict of interest; application of subcategories)