Alfaro-Valleda v. State ( 2024 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
No. 126,311
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
DENIS ALFARO-VALLEDA,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; MICHAEL A. RUSSELL, judge. Submitted without oral
argument. Opinion filed October 18, 2024. Affirmed.
.
Derek W. Miller, of Miller & French, LLC, of Liberal, for appellant.
Kirstyn D. Malloy, assistant district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Kris W.
Kobach, attorney general, for appellee.
Before MALONE, P.J., HURST and COBLE, JJ.
HURST, J.: Denis Alfaro-Valleda appeals the district court's summary denial of his
60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court
correctly concluded that Alfaro-Valleda's motion alleging several trial counsel
deficiencies were all merely conclusory without factual or evidentiary support. On appeal
Alfaro-Valleda contends that two of those allegations were more than conclusory and
entitled him to an evidentiary hearing as to those claims. Upon review, this court finds no
error. The district court correctly concluded that Alfaro-Valleda's claims were
1
impermissibly conclusory and did not merit an evidentiary hearing. The district court is
affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2019, a jury convicted Alfaro-Valleda of first-degree premeditated
murder, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. State v.
Alfaro-Valleda, 314 Kan. 526, 502 P.3d 66 (2022). The details of his January 2018 crime
and conviction are not pertinent to this present appeal. In January 2023, Alfaro-Valleda
filed a timely 60-1507 motion alleging his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for
the following seven reasons:
"(a) Trial counsel failed to properly investigate the allegations presented in the charging
document for which the movant stood trial.
"(b) Counsel failed to meet with and prepare witnesses for trial and only met with said
witnesses when they appeared the day of trial.
"(c) Counsel failed to properly apprise movant of his options and the likelihood that he
would be convicted of the offense charged and failed to properly negotiate for a plea
offer.
"(d) Counsel failed to adequately explain any of the offers on the table at the time of the
negotiations in order to give movant the information necessary when deciding whether to
move forward with a trial or seek a plea agreement.
"(e) Counsel failed to file and appropriate present pre-trial motions and/or failed to file
and appropriately present post-trial motions.
"(f) Counsel failed to adequately meet with movant in order to apprise him of his
situation before, during and after the trial.
"(g) At trial, counsel failed to lodge proper objections and failed to adequately present
evidence to show movant's innocence and/or rebut state's evidence."
The district court summarily denied Alfaro-Valleda's motion about a month later
and explained that the "motion does not warrant an evidentiary hearing because his
2
allegations are merely conclusory and/or have no support in the record of the criminal
case." The district court explained that Alfaro-Valleda "offered no factual basis" or
"reference to the record" to support his allegations. Rather—according to the district
court— Alfaro-Valleda "merely stated his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel
without more." The district court therefore ultimately concluded that Alfaro-Valleda
"failed to provide the court with sufficient facts and/or evidence to determine if he is
entitled to a hearing on the motion" and summarily denied the motion without granting an
evidentiary hearing. Alfaro-Valleda timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
The only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in summarily
dismissing Alfaro-Valleda's 60-1507 motion. Alfaro-Valleda argues that two of his seven
allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were sufficiently nonconclusory to
warrant an evidentiary hearing. A district court has three options for handling a 60-1507
motion. The district court may (1) determine the motion, files, and case records
conclusively show the prisoner is not entitled to relief and summarily deny the motion
without a hearing; (2) determine from the motion, files, and records that a potentially
substantial issue exists, and hold a preliminary hearing and if the court finds no
substantial issue, the court may then deny the motion; or (3) determine from the motion,
files, records, or preliminary hearing that a substantial issue is presented requiring a full
evidentiary hearing. State v. Adams, 311 Kan. 569, 577-78, 465 P.3d 176 (2020).
The defendant carries the burden "to show a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel warrants an evidentiary hearing." State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 425, 362 P.3d
828 (2015). That means a district court need only hold an evidentiary hearing when the
defendant makes "more than conclusory contentions" and states "an evidentiary basis in
support of those claims" or the record contains some evidentiary support for the claims.
Breedlove v. State, 310 Kan. 56, 66, 445 P.3d 1101 (2019); see also Thuko v. State, 310
3
Kan. 74, Syl. ¶ 3, 444 P.3d 927 (2019) ("A movant has the burden to prove his or her
K.S.A. 60-1507 motion warrants an evidentiary hearing."). "In stating the evidentiary
basis, the K.S.A. 60–1507 motion must set forth a factual background, names of
witnesses, or other sources of evidence to demonstrate that the movant is entitled to
relief." Swenson v. State, 284 Kan. 931, Syl. ¶ 2, 169 P.3d 298 (2007) (remanding for
further proceedings when movant included witness name and what they would testify to).
This court's standard of review on appeal depends on how the district court
disposed of the 60-1507 motion. Adams, 311 Kan. at 578. When, as here, the district
court summarily denies a 60-1507 motion, this court reviews the record de novo—
looking at the motion, files, and records anew—to determine whether they conclusively
establish that the defendant is not entitled to relief. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-1507(b); Noyce
v. State, 310 Kan. 394, 398, 447 P.3d 355 (2019); Kansas Supreme Court Rule 183(f)
(2024 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 241).
Courts must analyze claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel using a two-
prong test established by the United State Supreme Court. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, reh. denied 467 U.S. 1267 (1984); see
also Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650, 656-57, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and
applying the test articulated in Strickland). Under the first prong, the defendant must
show that defense counsel's performance was deficient. Khalil-Alsalaami v. State, 313
Kan. 472, 485, 486 P.3d 1216 (2021). Deficient performance under the first prong is
when the defendant shows "'that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness.'" 313 Kan. at 485 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688). If the
defendant satisfies the first prong, the court then looks to the second prong to determine
whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent defense counsel's deficient
performance, the result would have been different. Khalil-Alsalaami, 313 Kan. at 485.
This means that the defendant must show the counsel's deficient performance prejudiced
the defendant. To demonstrate prejudice, the defendant must establish with reasonable
4
probability that the deficient performance affected the outcome of the proceedings. 313
Kan. at 485.
Alfaro-Valleda argues on appeal that his 60-1507 motion sufficiently alleged—
more than conclusory—that (1) his trial counsel failed to meet with and prepare witnesses
for trial, and only meet with the witnesses when they came to trial, and (2) his trial
counsel failed to present evidence of actual innocence or rebuttal evidence. Alfaro-
Valleda does not challenge the district court's findings that his other allegations of
ineffective assistance of counsel were merely conclusory, and any objection to the district
court's denial of those claims is waived or abandoned. See State v. Meggerson, 312 Kan.
238, 246, 474 P.3d 761 (2020) ("Issues not briefed or not adequately briefed are deemed
waived or abandoned.").
In support of his first claim on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to meet with and prepare witnesses, Alfaro-Valleda's 60-1507 motion offered only
the following allegation: "Counsel failed to meet with and prepare witnesses for trial and
only met with said witnesses when they appeared the day of trial." Alfaro-Valleda failed
to identify any witness his trial counsel allegedly failed to adequately meet or prepare,
failed to allege specifics of the inadequate preparation, and failed to allege how that
alleged deficiency affected his trial. In fact, the 60-1507 motion form Alfaro-Valleda
used prompted him to provide "the names and addresses of the witnesses or other
evidence upon which you intend to rely to prove those facts," but he failed to do so.
Alfaro-Valleda carried the burden to allege sufficient detail and demonstrate support in
the record for his allegations. Instead, Alfaro-Valleda submitted a bare allegation of
inadequate witness preparation—which is insufficient to satisfy his burden to
demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice.
In support of his second claim on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to present evidence of innocence or rebuttal evidence, Alfaro-Valleda's 60-1507
5
motion offered only the following allegations: "At trial, counsel. . .failed to adequately
present evidence to show movant's innocence and/or rebut state's evidence." Again,
Alfaro-Valleda failed to identify what evidence his trial counsel allegedly failed to
present. Not only did he fail to list the evidence that his trial counsel should have
included, but Alfaro-Valleda's motion also failed to allege how this unidentified evidence
would have supported his innocence or affected the trial's outcome. Alfaro-Valleda had
the burden to provide specific evidentiary support for his conclusory allegation, but he
failed to do so. See Sprague, 303 Kan. at 427 (upholding dismissal of an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim when the movant fails to "proffer any evidentiary basis that
his counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient").
Although on appeal Alfaro-Valleda offers more specific details supporting his
conclusory allegations, appellate review is not an appropriate time to provide such detail.
This court's role is to determine whether Alfaro-Valleda provided sufficient evidentiary
support for his allegations to the district court to warrant an evidentiary hearing and
survive summary denial. See, e.g., Sprague, 303 Kan. at 427 (reviewing arguments
submitted to district court despite attempted reframing on appeal). On appeal Alfaro-
Valleda faults the district court for being too detailed in its summary denial—as though
the district court's diligence somehow lends credibility or sufficiency to his 60-1507
motion. To be clear, it does not. Not only does Alfaro-Valleda provide no legal support
for this contention, but the argument fails logically. Even if Alfaro-Valleda's claims were
not impermissibly conclusory, he is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
See, e.g., Mundy v. State, 307 Kan. 280, 304-05, 408 P.3d 965 (2018) (upholding
summary denial of the movant's 60-1507 based on its conclusory allegations without
evidentiary support even when the district court pointed to evidence contradicting the
allegations). The district court is not required to hold a preliminary or full evidentiary
hearing when the motion, files, and case records conclusively show the defendant is not
entitled to relief. K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-1507(b). Alfaro-Valleda simply failed to provide
the factual or evidentiary support for his conclusory allegations as required.
6
CONCLUSION
The district court did not err in summarily denying Alfaro-Valleda's 60-1507
motion for failure to sufficiently allege facts supporting his allegations of ineffective
assistance of counsel. Alfaro-Valleda's 60-1507 motion was exceedingly conclusory
without factual support or allegations of prejudice. The district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
7