Sola-Morales v. State, 118,451
| Decision Date | 15 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 118,451,118,451 |
| Citation | 451 P.3d 887 (Table) |
| Parties | Santiago SOLA-MORALES, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
This appeal is the latest chapter in Santiago Sola-Morales' original habeas corpus action challenging his conviction for voluntary manslaughter in a 2006 jury trial in Sedgwick County District Court. Five years after the guilty verdict, we affirmed the district court's denial of Sola-Morales' motion for relief under K.S.A. 60-1507 without an evidentiary hearing. Sola-Morales v. State , No. 104,388, 2011 WL 4440414 (Kan. App. 2011) (unpublished opinion). On review, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded the motion to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on two issues arising from Roger Falk's performance as Sola-Morales' lawyer leading up to and during the jury trial: (1) The failure to call Stephen Peterson as a witness at trial; and (2) whether a series of trial continuances that Falk obtained and a motion to dismiss that Sola-Morales personally filed created an actual conflict between him and Falk and, if so, what effect that may have had on the quality of the legal representation. Sola-Morales v. State , 300 Kan. 875, 898-99, 335 P.3d 1162 (2014).
The district court held an evidentiary hearing in June 2015 and, after a request for more detailed findings, entered a lengthy journal entry in May 2017 denying Sola-Morales any relief. Sola-Morales has appealed, now bringing his habeas corpus challenge to us for a second time. As we explain, Sola-Morales has effectively abandoned his claim regarding Peterson, and the district court's factual findings, including credibility determinations, undercut his claim rooted in the continuances and the motion to dismiss. Even if the dispute about the continuances and the motion created an actual conflict between Sola-Morales and Falk, that would not have translated into legal prejudice requiring reversal of the jury verdict. We, therefore, affirm the district court.
The extended history of the underlying direct criminal case and this 60-1507 proceeding belie the comparatively straightforward disposition of the two issues the Kansas Supreme Court identified and the district court addressed on remand, especially as we now consider them on appellate review. We outline that background as necessary to place our discussion in context.
In the criminal case, the State charged Sola-Morales with intentional second-degree murder in the March 2005 shooting of Frank Sibat. Sibat was fatally shot once in the chest in the living room of his Wichita home. Police investigators found living room furniture broken and in disarray, consistent with a physical struggle. Sibat had numerous injuries indicative of an extended fight or beating. At trial, the forensic pathologist who autopsied Sibat's body testified that the fatal shot would have been fired from at least several feet away given the absence of stippling on the body and of any other gunpowder residue. Postmortem testing showed Sibat had alcohol and cocaine in his system when he died.
Immediately after the shooting, Sola-Morales left Wichita. The next morning the Wichita police received information that Sola-Morales was involved in a shooting and had boarded a bus for Miami. Based on that tip, the Wichita police had authorities in Nashville, Tennessee, take Sola-Morales into custody at the bus station there. Detectives from the Wichita police department questioned Sola-Morales in Nashville before transporting him back. Sola-Morales initially told the detectives he had been at Sibat's home. He said he and Sibat had been drinking for several hours, and while he was in the bathroom, a man he knew as Rubin arrived. According to Sola-Morales, Rubin pointed a handgun at Sibat and fired. Rubin then tried to shoot Sola-Morales but the gun jammed or misfired. And Sola-Morales told the detectives Rubin fled.
One of the detectives commented on a 4-inch scratch on Sola-Morales' neck. Sola-Morales explained he had leaned over Sibat, who grabbed him in an effort to get up and go after Rubin. Although Sibat had been shot, Sola-Morales told the detectives he concluded the wound was not especially serious. He said he then went home, told his wife he was in trouble, disposed of the clothes he had been wearing, and went to work. According to Sola-Morales, he told a coworker what had happened, and the coworker later drove him to the bus station. Sola-Morales advised the detectives he had no injuries other than the scratch.
After a short break, the detectives told Sola-Morales the account he had just given them didn't fit with the information they had received. Sola-Morales then offered a second version in which Sibat came at him when he returned from the bathroom. The two fought, and Sibat reached for a handgun he had in the waistband of his pants. In this version, Sola-Morales and Sibat were on the floor wrestling for control of the gun when it discharged, fatally injuring Sibat. Sola-Morales said he took the gun and left. The rest of the second narrative basically matched the first with the added detail that Sola-Morales also disposed of the handgun.
On the trip back from Nashville to Wichita, Sola-Morales offered the detectives a third version of the shooting. He told the detectives Sibat drew the handgun and pointed it at him. But he said he was able to wrestle the gun away from Sibat and to step back. Sibat then said he intended to kill Sola-Morales and began moving forward. Sola-Morales explained he fired one shot ostensibly in self-defense. Again, Sola-Morales said he left with the gun and later got rid of it.
During the trial in late March 2006, the State had the lead detective tell the jury about all three of Sola-Morales' versions of the shooting and describe his appearance at the time, including the scratch on his neck. Investigators were never able to find the handgun or the clothing Sola-Morales said he discarded. Sola-Morales' coworker testified at trial during the State's case. The coworker told the jury Sola-Morales first said he had killed a man but later said he had only injured him. According to the coworker, Sola-Morales explained there was a fight over a gun and the other man got shot.
Sola-Morales did not testify in his own defense at the criminal trial, and Falk presented no other witnesses. The jury convicted Sola-Morales of the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter.
At a later hearing, the district court ordered Sola-Morales to serve 216 months in prison, a standard guidelines sentence based on his criminal history. Sola-Morales filed a direct appeal, and this court affirmed the conviction and prison sentence. State v. Sola-Morales , No. 97,011, 2008 WL 2510154 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion). He then timely filed his habeas corpus motion under K.S.A. 60-1507.
We now double back to fill in the procedural markers bearing on the issues before us in this appeal. After the district court appointed Falk to represent Sola-Morales in the underlying criminal case in April 2005, he delegated significant responsibilities to another lawyer in his office. When that lawyer left the office later in the year, Falk resumed full representation of Sola-Morales. In the meantime, the public defender office serving Sedgwick County was overextended with the representation of a man charged (and later convicted) as the notorious serial killer BTK. To help alleviate that situation, the agency asked and Falk agreed to take appointments in about half a dozen major felony cases. Falk's wife was later diagnosed with cancer in 2005 and underwent surgery and received other treatment from then through Sola-Morales' jury trial.
Falk requested and received six continuances of Sola-Morales' trial date that spanned late June 2005 to late March 2006. Everybody agrees the State requested no continuances of the trial during that period. The circumstances surrounding the six continuances are at the center of Sola-Morales' complaint that Falk had a conflict of interest compromising their lawyer-client relationship and impairing the representation he received during the trial.
Even under the best conditions, reconstructing those circumstances at the 60-1507 hearing—some nine years later—would have been challenging. In this case, the challenge was compounded because Falk could produce only a fragment of his office file on Sola-Morales' criminal case. Some of the file had been created and stored electronically and was later lost in a computer crash. Much of the paper file had been archived without being catalogued and could not be found. The hearing transcript suggests Falk had some remnants from his file and Sola-Morales had copies of filings and other materials Falk had provided to him years earlier. At the 60-1507 hearing, Falk acknowledged he did not have a detailed recollection of his communications with Sola-Morales leading up to the jury trial and had few documents to review to refresh his memory.
Before the jury trial, Sola-Morales was detained at the Sedgwick County jail. Falk does not speak Spanish, and he did not consider Sola-Morales to be particularly fluent in English. So they typically communicated using a translator. Falk testified that as a result, he rarely spoke to Sola-Morales by telephone and relied on face-to-face meetings at the jail or relaying general information through Jackie Duarte, Sola-Morales' bilingual wife. Falk testified that he believed he spoke with Sola-Morales about each of the six continuances and explained he requested them because of his overall caseload. When Falk was shown visitor logs from the jail indicating he had not seen Sola-Morales at times corresponding to the requested continuances, he deferred to the accuracy of those records.
At the 60-1507 hearing, Sola-Morales admitted as evidence letters from Falk's office to him dated May 6, 2005; June 21, 2005; December 12, 2005; and February 10, 2006....
To continue reading
Request your trial