State v. Sharkey, 299 Kan. 87

Sharkey was convicted at a second trial of aggravated indecent liberties with a child involving a 12-year-old victim.
DNA evidence at trial linked Sharkey to semen on the pajamas; later DNA testing revealed a third contributor, leading to a new trial denial and defense theories.
Sharkey filed two pro se motions for new trial and for reappointment of counsel seven days after verdict; they addressed ineffective assistance claims.
A journal entry error at sentencing initially ordered lifetime electronic monitoring, which the court later corrected nunc pro tunc, rendering that issue moot.
The trial court denied Sharkey’s pro se motions without appointing conflict-free counsel; sentencing proceeded with a life term and Jessica’s Law provisions.
The court granted appellate jurisdiction and remanded for appointment of conflict-free counsel to argue the pro se motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Journal entry error mootness	Sharkey argued the journal entry error affected sentencing and monitoring conditions.	Sharkey contends the error required appellate correction and potential relief, though moot after correction.	moot; corrected nunc pro tunc
Sufficiency of evidence on intent (alternative means)	State contends Britt controls; jury need not be unanimous on means but must have evidence of each instructed means.	Sharkey argues the indictment required proving alternative means; Britt forecloses that contention.	Britt controls; issue resolved against Sharkey
Duty to inquire into conflict and appoint conflict-free counsel at pro se motions	State argues no Sixth Amendment right to counsel for pro se motions since trial completed.	Sharkey asserts the judge had a duty to inquire and appoint conflict-free counsel due to evident conflicts.	abuse of discretion; remand for new conflict-free counsel
Prejudice showing for conflict-of-interest at motions hearing	State argues no required prejudice showing for the ineffective-assistance claim at motions stage.	Sharkey contends preclusion of counsel at a critical stage merits reversal regardless of proven prejudice.	prejudice presumed under Cronic/Mickens framework; remand with new counsel

State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018 (2012) (intent element not stated as alternative means; Britt controls)
State v. Andrews, 228 Kan. 368 (1980) (timely new-trial motions require counsel under 22-4503(a))
State v. Kingsley, 252 Kan. 761 (1993) (untimely motions governed by 22-4506; appointment not required)
State v. Kirby, 272 Kan. 1170 (2002) (untimely new-trial motions; no counsel required)
State v. Toney, 39 Kan. App. 2d 1036 (2008) (conflict of interest at motion hearing; need inquiry)
State v. Vann, 280 Kan. 782 (2006) (duty to inquire when conflict appears)
State v. Carter, 284 Kan. 312 (2007) (Sixth Amendment duty to protect right to counsel)
Stovall, 298 Kan. 362 (2013) (inquiry required when conflict suspected; abuse of discretion)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (three categories of ineffective-assistance; Cronic exception applies)
Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (complete denial of counsel at a critical stage implies prejudice)
Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (right to counsel limited to direct appeal)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (right to counsel extends to direct appeal)