Samek v. State

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 124,307 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS TRAVIS SAMEK, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; MICHAEL A. RUSSELL, judge. Opinion filed August 5, 2022. Affirmed. Dionne M. Scherff, of Joseph, Hollander & Craft LLC, of Overland Park, for appellant. Claire Kebodeaux, assistant district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, for appellee. Before GREEN, P.J., SCHROEDER and CLINE, JJ. PER CURIAM: Travis Samek appeals from the district court's denial of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. He alleges his trial counsel was ineffective for a number of reasons, which can generally be categorized as: (1) failure to investigate potentially helpful evidence; (2) failure to make or file motions; (3) failure to object to certain evidence at trial; and (4) cumulative error. Upon a careful and extensive review of the record, we find no error and affirm. 1 FACTS The full factual and procedural history of the underlying criminal case is set forth in State v. Samek, No. 118,055, 2019 WL 1087258 (Kan. App. 2019) (unpublished opinion). Relevant to this appeal, Samek was charged with two counts of rape and one count each of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and aggravated criminal sodomy for acts committed in 2013. Samek's first trial resulted in a hung jury, and the trial court declared a mistrial. In his second trial, a jury convicted him of all four counts as charged. The trial court imposed a total controlling sentence of lifetime imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 50 years. On direct appeal, another panel of our court affirmed Samek's convictions and prison sentence but vacated the district court's imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision and remanded to the district court with instructions to prepare a corrected journal entry reflecting Samek was subject to lifetime parole. Samek, 2019 WL 1087258, at *5. Samek filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion in April 2020, asserting his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: • Investigate the mental capacity or request a psychiatric evaluation of the victim, J.S.; • investigate prior allegations J.S. purportedly made against her cousin; • investigate or introduce evidence of J.S.'s prior crimes or acts of dishonesty; • investigate threatening text messages allegedly sent to Samek by J.S.'s stepfather; • object to testimony by forensic interviewers; • object to testimony from J.S. about events she claimed to remember two days before trial; • move for a directed verdict after the State's case-in-chief. 2 Samek also alleged individual and collective deficiencies warranted reversal of his convictions and sentence. At the evidentiary hearing on Samek's motion, both he and his trial counsel, KiAnn Caprice, testified along with his criminal defense expert, Christopher Brown. After taking notice of the trial court records and considering the testimony and exhibits presented at the evidentiary hearing, as well as the parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court issued a written decision denying Samek's motion. Additional facts are set forth …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals