Kiker v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01341-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01341-COA ; 2008-CT-01341-SCT ; 2008-CT-01341-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-10-2009 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Right to counsel - Conflict of interest Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: IRVING, J. (WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION) Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-22-2008 Appealed from: George County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2007-0256 (1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JULIUS WESLEY KIKER |
PERCY STANFIELD |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Right to counsel - Conflict of interest |
| Summary of the Facts: | Julius Kiker was convicted of murder. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. The supreme court subsequently granted Kiker leave to proceed with a pro se motion for post-conviction relief solely on the issue of whether Kiker’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on Kiker’s motion and entered an order denying the requested relief. Kiker appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Kiker argues that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated because his attorney also represented a witness for the State, who had charges pending against him and who testified against Kiker. There is no question that a potential conflict of interest existed due to the representation of one of Kiker's attorneys of both Kiker and the witness. However, there was no evidence or allegation that Kiker’s other attorney had any conflict of interest. In order to demonstrate a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance. The attorney with the conflict did not cross-examine any of the State’s twelve witnesses, did not conduct voir dire, did not make the opening or closing statement, and only conducted the direct examination of two of the five defense witnesses. When he became aware of the conflict, he brought it to the attention of the circuit court and the State. Based on the unique facts of the case, there was no abuse of discretion with the circuit court’s denial of Kiker’s motion for post-conviction relief. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
