State v. Quartez Brown, 300 Kan. 565

Background

Quartez Brown and co-defendants confronted Otis Bolden's apartment, entering uninvited and fatally shooting Bolden after Green was threatened with a gun.
DNA on a Bluetooth earbud found at the scene matched Quartez; photos from his cell phone depicted him wearing an earbud.
Quartez initially moved for new counsel pro se; the motion was withdrawn on the record without a clear judicial inquiry.
At sentencing, Quartez claimed he was not allowed to discharge counsel, prompting a potential conflict-of-interest issue.
The district court convicted Quartez of felony murder, second-degree murder as a lesser offense, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault; second-degree murder was not separately sentenced, but remained on the judgment.
On appeal, the court remanded for a hearing on attorney dissatisfaction and ordered a nunc pro tunc correction of the second-degree murder severity level.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court err in not properly inquiring into the pro se motion for new counsel?	Quartez argued the court failed to inquire after his pro se motion was withdrawn.	State contends no duty to inquire existed due to timing and procedural posture.	Abuse of discretion; remanded for an inquiry into conflict.
Was there sufficient evidence for aggravated burglary, felony murder, and aggravated assault?	Brown argued insufficiency of proof for these convictions.	State maintained evidence supported each element beyond a reasonable doubt.	Evidence supported aggravated burglary and related convictions; otherwise resolved on remand.
Were lesser-included-offense instructions properly denied for voluntary manslaughter and reckless/uninformed variants?	Quartez sought voluntary manslaughter and other lesser offenses.	Court properly refused due to lack of heat-of-passion or unintentional killing evidence.	No reversible error; instructions properly denied, but remand may moot depending on conflict inquiry.
Was the journal entry mislabeling second-degree murder as an off-grid offense reversible?	Second-degree murder was misclassified in the journal entry.	No substantive impact beyond clerical correction.	Remand for nunc pro tunc correction; classification corrected.
Did Apprendi-based concerns about prior-conviction use at sentencing violate Sixth/Fourteenth Amendments?	State did not prove prior convictions to jury beyond reasonable doubt.	Issue not preserved; prior convictions should have been charged/proven to jury.	Issues not raised below; law reaffirmed; not reversible on appeal.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sharkey, 299 Kan. 87 (2014) (duty to inquire into potential attorney conflict; abuse of discretion if not done)
State v. Wells, 297 Kan. 741 (2013) (articulated statement of dissatisfaction triggers inquiry into conflict)
State v. Stovall, 298 Kan. 362 (2013) (district court abuses discretion when failing to inquire about conflicts)
State v. Vann, 280 Kan. 782 (2006) (record of pretrial motion to discharge counsel; duty to inquire upon conflict)
Deal, 293 Kan. 872 (2012) (redefines recklessness focus under 21-3402; unintentional but reckless murder)