State v. Pfannenstiel, 302 Kan. 747

Victim C.W. reported waking to a moist, sucking sensation on her arm and found a man (Pfannenstiel) kneeling by her bed; she elbowed him and her boyfriend chased him out. DNA from the site matched Pfannenstiel as a major contributor.
Pfannenstiel admitted entering C.W.’s apartment through a window after an earlier bar conversation but denied kissing/sucking her arm and claimed she invited him over.
He was tried on aggravated sexual battery and aggravated burglary; acquitted of burglary but convicted of aggravated sexual battery.
After conviction, Pfannenstiel filed a pro se motion to dismiss his court-appointed counsel alleging ineffective assistance and poor communication; the district court held an on-the-record inquiry with counsel and defendant, denied the motion, and then sentenced him.
Pfannenstiel appealed, arguing (1) the court should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of sexual battery and (2) the district court should have appointed conflict-free counsel for the hearing on his motion to dismiss counsel. The Kansas Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Pfannenstiel's Argument	State's/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by not instructing the jury on sexual battery as a lesser included offense of aggravated sexual battery	The evidence left reasonable doubt that C.W. was unconscious when touched, so the jury could have convicted only of the lesser offense	The record (victim testimony, DNA) supports aggravated sexual battery; defendant failed to request the instruction so reversal requires clear error showing	No clear error — sexual battery is a lesser included offense but Pfannenstiel failed to show he was "firmly convinced" jury would have reached a different verdict
Whether the defendant was entitled to appointed, conflict-free counsel at the hearing on his pro se motion to dismiss counsel	Court-appointed substitute counsel should have been provided for the hearing because the State and counsel were present and the court questioned appointed counsel, creating a conflict and need for substitute counsel	A threshold showing of "justifiable dissatisfaction" is required before appointing substitute counsel; an on-the-record inquiry without immediate substitution is appropriate and did not create per se conflict	No abuse of discretion — district court made an appropriate inquiry, did not err by not immediately appointing substitute counsel, and did not create a disqualifying conflict

State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506 (discusses three-step jury-instruction review framework)
State v. Cameron, 300 Kan. 384 (standard for finding clear error on unrequested jury instructions)
State v. Brown, 300 Kan. 565 (right to effective counsel; showing justifiable dissatisfaction to obtain substitute counsel)
State v. Prado, 299 Kan. 1251 (duty to inquire into alleged counsel conflicts; limits on counsel statements during inquiry)
State v. Pierce, 246 Kan. 183 (if court determines a hearing is required on certain postconviction matters, counsel should be appointed)
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (warning against automatically appointing substitute counsel without inquiry; conflicts may be asserted for delay)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (conflict-of-interest principles governing counsel's divided loyalties)