|
Kinzel v. State
Download as PDF
Back to Opinions Page
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
Decision: 2002 ME 84
Docket: Aro-01-351
Argued: May 9, 2002
Decided: May 29, 2002
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS,
and LEVY, JJ.
AARON KINZEL
v.
STATE OF MAINE
PER CURIAM
[¶1] Aaron Kinzel appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court, (Aroostook
County, Mead, C.J.), denying his petition on post-conviction review. Kinzel contends that his
trial attorney neglected to file a notice of appeal after he had asked him to file the notice. His trial
attorney denied that Kinzel had ever asked for an appeal. The post-conviction court found both
Kinzel and the attorney credible, but concluded that Kinzel failed to sustain his burden of proof.
[¶2] The United States Supreme Court has held "that a lawyer who disregards specific
instructions from the defendant to file a notice of appeal acts in a manner that is professionally
unreasonable." Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477 (2000) (citing Rodriquez v. United
States, 395 U.S. 327 (1969)). The post-conviction court's finding that Kinzel's assertion is
credible indicates that Kinzel did not consent to the decision not to file an appeal. Id. Under the
unusual circumstances of this case, we hold that Kinzel has made a sufficient showing that his
trial attorney did not act in a reasonable manner.
The entry is:
The Defendant's right to appeal is reinstated.
Remanded to the Superior Court for further
proceedings consistent with the opinion herein.
Attorney for appellant:
Eugene J. McLaughlin Jr., Esq. (orally)
P O Box 589
Presque Isle, Me 04769
Attorneys for State:
G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General
Charles k. Leadbetter, State Solicitor (orally)
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0006
Neale T. Adams, District Attorney
144 Sweden Street
Caribou, ME 04736
|