State v. Sharkey

Summary

The Kansas Supreme Court considered whether the trial court erred by denying Tyjuna M. Sharkey’s timely pro se motions for a new trial without appointing conflict-free counsel or adequately inquiring into the alleged conflict with trial counsel. The court held that a timely motion for a new trial is a critical stage at which the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to inquire into the apparent conflict. The court remanded for appointment of new counsel and consideration of Sharkey’s motions for a new trial.

Holdings

1. The intent element of K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(3)(A) does not state alternative means, and the court reaffirmed State v. Britt.
2. A motion for a new trial filed within the statutory 14-day period and before a direct appeal is a critical stage of the criminal proceedings, and the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the hearing.
3. When a trial court becomes aware of a possible conflict between a felony defendant and defense counsel, including through a timely pro se motion alleging ineffective assistance, the court must inquire into the nature of the conflict. Failure to conduct any inquiry is an abuse of discretion and requires appointment of new conflict-free counsel where warranted.
4. Sharkey was not required to demonstrate case-specific prejudice because the conflict effectively denied him representation at a critical stage; prejudice is presumed under the Cronic exception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the intent element of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(3)(A) constitutes alternative means requiring substantial competent evidence of each instructed means.
2. Whether a timely posttrial motion for a new trial filed before a direct appeal is a critical stage at which the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
3. Whether the trial court must inquire into a possible conflict of interest and appoint new conflict-free counsel when a defendant's timely new-trial motion alleges ineffective assistance by current counsel.
4. Whether a defendant must demonstrate prejudice to obtain a new hearing when counsel was effectively absent because of a conflict at a critical stage.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded