Kiker v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CT-01341-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01341-COA ; 2008-CA-01341-COA ; 2008-CT-01341-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-17-2011
Opinion Author: Kitchens, J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Duty of loyalty - Conflicting representations - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
Writ of Certiorari: yes
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-22-2008
Appealed from: GEORGE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: ROBERT P. KREBS
Disposition: Julius Wesley Kiker was convicted by a jury of the March 6, 2002, murder of his wife, Renee Kiker, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Five years later, an evidentiary hearing was held in the George County Circuit Court, and the trial judge denied Kiker’s petition.
Case Number: 2007-0256 (1)
  Consolidated: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded. See the original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO58696.pdf

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Julius Wesley Kiker




PERCY STANFIELD



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 - Duty of loyalty - Conflicting representations - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Julius Kiker was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed both his conviction and sentence. Two years later, a panel of the Supreme Court granted Kiker leave to proceed in the trial court on his post-conviction claim that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to his trial counsel’s representation of a witness for the State. An evidentiary hearing was held, and the trial judge denied his motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Constitutional guarantees of due process of law require undivided loyalty of defense counsel. Because loyalty is an essential element in the lawyer’s relationship to a client, the Mississippi Rules of Profession Conduct prohibit a lawyer’s representing conflicting interests without knowing and informed consent from the clients. If an impermissible conflict arises after the lawyer already has undertaken representation, the lawyer should withdraw from the case. Defense counsel have an ethical obligation to avoid conflicting representations and to advise the court promptly when a conflict of interest arises during the course of trial. When a trial judge becomes aware that the accused is being represented by an attorney with an actual conflict of interest, the trial judge is under a duty to advise the defendant of his right to separate, independent counsel. When the accused is represented by an attorney with an actual conflict of interest, the accused has received ineffective assistance of counsel as a matter of law, and reversal is automatic irrespective of a showing of prejudice unless the accused knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional right to conflict free representation. Whether Kiker must demonstrate prejudice turns on whether there was an actual, as opposed to a potential, conflict of interest. By representing Kiker and a witness against him, Kiker’s attorney clearly was actively representing conflicting interests. The attorney owed a duty of loyalty both to Kiker and to the witness, a duty that was impossible to fulfill if one of his clients was offering testimony against the other. Since the attorney was under an actual conflict of interest, Kiker need not demonstrate any specific prejudice to his defense. It is undisputed that Kiker himself did not waive this actual conflict of interest. The trial judge, the defense attorneys, and the prosecutor knew about the conflict, and they all failed in their respective duties.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court