Wimbley v. State
257 P.3d 328
| Kan. | 2011Background
- February 10, 1999: Tina Cooper (Wimbley's ex-girlfriend) is found shot seven times; Wimbley is charged and convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm.
- Wimbley appeals; Wimbley I (2001) affirms convictions, rejecting prosecutorial misconduct and sufficiency challenges related to a misstatement of premeditation.
- Wimbley files a second K.S.A. 60-1507 motion in 2008 alleging prosecutorial misconduct and seeking DNA retesting on the murder weapon; district court denies without evidentiary hearing.
- Court of Appeals (Wimbley III, 2010) reverses on procedural grounds, finding an intervening change in the law (Holmes) warranted relief and remands for a new trial and comprehensive DNA hearing.
- Supreme Court of Kansas reverses the Court of Appeals: Holmes does not create an intervening change in the law; second 60-1507 motion remains properly barred absent exceptional circumstances; denies relief and affirms district court.
- DNA testing under K.S.A. 21-2512(a) is denied because material must be related to the investigation or prosecution, in state possession, and eligible for retesting with a reasonable likelihood of more accurate results; testing of the murder weapon is not exculpatory here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holmes constitutes an intervening change in the law creating exceptional circumstances | Wimbley argues Holmes created a new rule. | State contends Holmes is not an intervening change in the law. | Holmes did not create a new rule; no exceptional circumstances. |
| Whether Wimbley’s second 60-1507 motion was procedurally barred as successive | Wimbley claims intervening law allows consideration. | State argues lack of exceptional circumstances and procedural bar. | No exceptional circumstances; denial proper. |
| Whether the second 60-1507 motion merits relief for prosecutorial misconduct on premeditation misstatement | Misstatement affected the sufficiency/trailed issues. | Misstatement was not a structural error; prejudice must be shown. | Misstatement alone did not compel relief; no reversal for new trial. |
| Whether the DNA testing request under K.S.A. 21-2512(a) should be granted | DNA on the hammer should be retested to potentially exculpate Wimbley. | Retesting not warranted; material not previously tested or not likely to yield exculpatory results. | District court correctly denied retesting; no reasonable likelihood of exculpatory results. |
| Whether the ineffective assistance issues on first 1507 motion were properly before the court | IAC claims should have been considered; appellate counsel failed to argue Holmes. | IAC claims were not properly raised or attributable to peak appellate record; not properly before court. | IAC claims not properly before court; Court of Appeals reversal reversed; district court denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holmes, 272 Kan. 491 (2001) (prosecutor's misstatement of premeditation did not redefine law; prejudice inquiry governs reversal)
- State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58 (1997) (premeditation may arise in an instant rejected)
- State v. Jamison, 269 Kan. 564 (2000) (premeditation requires more than instantaneous act; defined beyond instant act)
- Holt v. State, 290 Kan. 491 (2010) (standard for de novo review of 60-1507 motions; exceptional circumstances needed)
- Bruner v. State, 277 Kan. 603 (2004) (possession and evidentiary issues related to DNA evidence)
- Lackey, 42 Kan. App. 2d 89 (2009) (unpublished; standard for DNA testing requests; unlimited review on appeal)
- Trotter v. State, 288 Kan. 112 (2009) (ineffective assistance of counsel framework; two-prong test)
- State v. Mitchell, 284 Kan. 374 (2007) (exceptional circumstances in 60-1507 context)