IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 115,184 ZIAD K. KHALIL-ALSALAAMI, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his or her defense. This right, deemed fundamental and essential to a fair trial, applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires more than the presence of an attorney; it guarantees the right to effective assistance from the attorney. The purpose of the effective assistance guarantee is simply to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial. 3. Claims alleging a violation of this Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel are analyzed under the well-established, two-prong test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), and adopted by our court in Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650, 694 P.2d 468 (1985). Under 1 the first prong, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient. If so, the court moves to the second prong and determines whether there is a reasonable probability that, without counsel's unprofessional errors, the result would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. A court that hears an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury. 4. Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential. A fair assessment of counsel's performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. Because of the difficulties inherent in making the evaluation, a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy. 5. Where the district court conducts a full evidentiary hearing and makes findings of fact and conclusions of law in ruling on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, we apply the mixed standard of review customarily applied in similar civil proceedings. Under this standard, an appellate court must determine whether the district court's factual findings are supported by substantial competent evidence and whether those findings are sufficient to support the district court's conclusions of law. Ultimately, the district court's conclusions of law and its decision to grant or deny the K.S.A. 60-1507 motion are reviewed using a de novo standard. 2 6. Substantial competent evidence is that which possesses both relevance and substance and which furnishes a substantial basis in fact from which the issues can reasonably be resolved. 7. In reviewing a district court's factual findings for substantial competent evidence, we cannot reweigh evidence, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals