Thompson v. State, 270 P.3d 1089

Thompson was convicted by a jury of aggravated indecent liberties with his 4-year-old daughter in 2002.
The State admitted S.T.’s videotaped interview; S.T. did not testify live.
Trial counsel chose not to call S.T. live and pursued strategy around the videotape; the defense questioned the interview’s reliability.
Thompson filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion on Nov. 2, 2006 alleging ineffective trial counsel; he amended on Apr. 20, 2007 with new arguments.
The district court limited live testimony at the hearing and ultimately dismissed untimely claims; the hearings focused on trial counsel’s strategy and decisions about S.T.’s testimony and the videotape.
The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court; Thompson sought Supreme Court review on related issues of amendment timing and merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Relation back to amend 60-1507 motion	Thompson argues amendment relates back to original filing under 60-215(c).	State argues relation back does not apply to a new time/type claim.	Relation back does not save a different-time/type appellate-counsel claim; timely only for same time/type.
Ineffective assistance—independent psychological evaluation	Counsel failed to pursue an independent evaluation of S.T.	Record shows no failure to investigate; strategic choice given logistical concerns.	No deficient performance shown; probable success of motion unlikely under Berriozabal factors.
Stipulation to admission of videotaped interview	Counsel’s stipulation violated reliability requirements and denied live confrontation.	Stipulation was a strategic choice aligned with client wishes and trial tactics.	No deficient performance; strategy supported by credibility findings and record.
Waiver of right to confrontation	Counsel failed to ensure Thompson understood waiving confrontation was voluntary.	Choice of whether to call a witness rests with counsel; not a failure of performance.	Not deficient; client counseling did not require informing of confrontation rights in this context.
Cumulative error	Cumulative impact of asserted errors denied fair trial.	No single or cumulative error shown; evidence overwhelming against Thompson.	Cumulative error analysis not satisfied; reversal not warranted.

Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1 (2009) (relation back and amendment under 60-215 analyzed; time/type framework for amendments to 60-1507 motions)
Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (2005) (amendments asserting new grounds must relate to the original core facts to relate back)
State v. Gonzales, 289 Kan. 351 (2009) (discusses standards for amendment and relation back; de novo review of legal conclusions)
State v. Price, 275 Kan. 78 (2003) (factors for evaluating independent psychological evaluations of victims)
Berriozabal v. State, 291 Kan. 568 (2010) (six-factor framework for independent psychological evaluation requests)