1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 124,321

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

JEFFRY ALBERT EVERETT,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Smith District Court; PRESTON PRATT, judge. Opinion filed September 16, 2022. 

Affirmed.

Randall L. Hodgkinson, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Natalie Chalmers, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before GREEN, P.J., ISHERWOOD and COBLE,JJ.

PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Jeffry Albert Everett of possession of 

methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, possession of drug paraphernalia, and 

unlawfully operating a vehicle without a tag light. He now raises three issues on appeal: 

(1) the jury instruction given which allowed the jury to infer intent to distribute if it found

Everett possessed 3.5 grams or more of methamphetamine was legally inappropriate and 

denied him a fair trial; (2) the district court failed to provide lesser included offense 

instructions for possession of less than 3.5 grams of methamphetamine; and (3) appointed 

counsel provided ineffective assistance by pursuing a guilt-based defense without his 

express approval.
2

After a review of the record, we affirm Everett's convictions as to all three issues.

Although the inference instruction was not legally appropriate, Everett has not sustained 

his burden to establish clear error. The lesser included offense instructions were not 

factually appropriate, and we decline to review his claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel as unpreserved.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Everett was stopped by law enforcement officers on October 24, 2020, while 

driving his vehicle with an inoperative tag light. During the traffic stop, the officers

searched his vehicle and deployed a canine to search the vehicle.

During the search, officers discovered a pipe used for inhaling methamphetamine 

protruding from a blue pouch behind the driver's seat stuck between it and the center 

console. Inside the blue pouch five plastic bags were discovered with two bags containing 

drug-like white substances. The first bag weighed around 2 grams. The second bag 

weighed about 14 grams. The substance was field tested and confirmed as 

methamphetamine. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) later tested and confirmed 

the substance in the second bag to be 13.34 grams of methamphetamine. Furthermore, an 

additional 29 empty plastic bags, similar to the ones containing the methamphetamine, 

were located inside the vehicle along with a digital scale. The officers found six cell 

phones in a bag on the backseat of the vehicle. With these phones, the cell phone Everett 

had in his possession at the time of the traffic stop, and another six cell phones located 

throughout the vehicle, a total of 13 cell phones were present in the vehicle. Everett was 

arrested on site and taken into custody.

About a week later, officers conducted a recorded interview with Everett. When 

officers asked Everett about the drugs during the interview, Everett repeatedly told the 

officers it was possible that the methamphetamine and the pipe found in the vehicle were 
3

his, but he did not definitively confirm that he possessed the drugs the officers retrieved 

because they were not shown to him. Everett stated that there should be around a 1/2 

ounce of methamphetamine within the vehicle. Everett also stated that the blue pouch 

containing the pipe and drugs was not his and that he was not aware where it came from 

but did not deny that it was in the vehicle and that the drugs and pipe inside were possibly 

his.

When asked during the interview about the multiple cell phones found in the 

vehicle, Everett said he usually goes through a lot of phones but, again, he did not 

confirm that all the cell phones were his. Everett told the officers that the vehicle was not 

registered under his name but that he was using the vehicle and making payments to 

purchase it. He claimed that the scale and clear bags found in the vehicle were for selling 

gold, specifically gold coins and flake that were retrieved from the vehicle.

Everett admitted to the interviewing officers that he is a drug user and that he had 

some methamphetamine for personal use. He also stated that on occasion he sometimes 

shared drugs with other people.

The State charged Everett with unlawful possession of methamphetamine with the 

intent to distribute, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use it for distribution, 

criminal use of a weapon, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia for personal use, 

and operating a vehicle without a tag light. The district court held a jury trial during

which four witnesses testified for the State. The State also showed the recording of 

Everett's interview with the officers to the jury during trial. The charge of criminal use of 

a weapon was later removed from the jury instructions as it was dismissed. The jury

convicted Everett on all remaining charges and Everett was sentenced to 123 months in 

prison.
4

Everett timely appeals.

ANALYSIS

As noted, Everett presents three issues on appeal: (1) the legality of the inference 

instruction to the jury; (2) whether the district court erred by failing to provide a jury 

instruction on lesser included offenses; and (3) whether Everett's trial counsel's guiltbased defense strategy constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and deprived him of

the right to a jury trial. We address each issue in turn.

THE INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE INSTRUCTION DID NOT RESULT IN CLEAR ERROR

Everett first argues that the district court erred when it provided an instruction to 

the jury stating that if it found him to have possessed more than 3.5 grams of 

methamphetamine, it could infer that he possessed the drugs with the intent to distribute. 

The instruction at issue, jury instruction No. 7, is identical to Kansas Pattern Instruction 

(PIK) Crim. 4th 57.022 (2013), which states:

"If you find the defendant possessed 3.5 grams or more of methamphetamine, 

you may infer that the defendant possessed with intent to distribute. You may consider 

the inference along with all the other evidence in the case. You may accept or reject it in 

determining whether the State has met the burden of proving the intent of the defendant. 

This burden never shifts to the defendant." (Emphasis added.)

As authority, this pattern instruction cites K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5705(e), which 

provides in pertinent part: "In any prosecution under this section, there shall be a 

rebuttable presumption of an intent to distribute if any person possesses the following 

quantities of controlled substances or analogs thereof: . . . (2) 3.5 grams or more of heroin 

or methamphetamine." (Emphasis added.)
5

Everett argues the instructional inference regarding intent to distribute is legally 

inappropriate considering recent Kansas Supreme Court precedent finding the pattern 

instruction sets out a permissive inference, while the statute provides a rebuttable 

presumption. See State v. Holder, 314 Kan. 799, 502 P.3d 1039 (2022). He also contends 

the other evidence regarding intent to distribute was sparse and entirely circumstantial, so

instructing the jury regarding the presumption was clear error. The State argues any error 

is not clear error, because the evidence in this case was overwhelming and, therefore,

even an erroneous instruction would have made no difference in Everett's conviction.

Legal framework

When analyzing jury instruction issues, our appellate courts adhere to the 

following framework:

"'"First, [the reviewing court] considers the reviewability of the issue from both 

jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; 

next, it applies unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally 

appropriate; then, it determines whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light 

most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the 

instruction; and finally, if the district court erred, this court determines whether the error 

was harmless, utilizing the test and degree of certainty set forth in State v. Ward, 292 

Kan. 541, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 (2012)."'" State v. Valdez, 316

Kan. 1, 6, 512 P.3d 1125 (2022).

But, if the defendant failed to object to the instructional error before the district 

court, rather than using the harmless error standard, the "'clear error standard is applied to 

assess prejudice.'" 316 Kan. at 6 (quoting State v. Owens, 314 Kan. 210, 235, 496 P.3d 

902 [2021]). In this vein, a failure to object below does not prevent appellate review, but 

"simply specifies a higher degree of prejudice to warrant reversal." Valdez, 316 Kan. at 6.
6

An instructional error equates to clear error if "'"the reviewing court reaches a firm 

conviction that if the trial error had not occurred there was a real possibility that the jury 

would have returned a different verdict."'" Reardon for Estate of Parsons v. King, 310 

Kan. 897, 902, 452 P.3d 849 (2019) (quoting Siruta v. Siruta, 301 Kan. 757, 772, 348 

P.3d 549 [2015]).

Preservation

The parties each maintain this issue was not properly preserved for appeal and,

therefore, the clear error standard should apply. Defense counsel did object to this

instruction at trial by stating, "Well, Your Honor, obviously we wouldn't want the jury to 

infer that. I think it's pretty clear in [the previous instruction] what is needed, what the 

elements are of the intent to distribute with just the weight being there." But counsel did 

not specifically object that the instruction differed from K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5705(e), 

which is the primary error being raised through this appeal. We agree the precise alleged 

error raised on appeal differs from the objection made at trial and will apply the clear 

error standard as a result.

The permissive instruction was legally inappropriate but does not amount to clear error.

Finding the issue reviewable, we must then determine whether the instruction was 

legally and factually appropriate, using an unlimited standard of review of the entire 

record. State v. Holley, 313 Kan. 249, 254, 485 P.3d 614 (2021). As noted, the language 

of Instruction No. 7 given by the district court is identical to PIK Crim. 4th 57.022, and

the corresponding statute is found at K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5705(e).

The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed this same pattern instruction in two recent 

decisions: Valdez and Holder. In Holder, our Supreme Court found this pattern 

instruction to be legally inappropriate because the altered version of the presumption 
7

presented does not "fairly and accurately reflect the applicable law specified by K.S.A. 

[2021] Supp. 21-5705(e), when measured narrowly against that statute." 314 Kan. at 806. 

Additionally, the Holder court found the instructed permissive inference "was not only 

unmoored from any statutory basis, its 450-gram threshold [for marijuana] had no 

connection to the evidence." 314 Kan. at 806. In Holder, the jury was informed "out of 

left field" that the possession of a threshold amount of marijuana could support an intentto-distribute inference, despite that the evidence showed the presence of a much larger 

quantity of drugs, and no other evidence "explained why a 450-gram threshold" would 

trigger the inference in that case. 314 Kan. at 806-07.

For the reasons discussed in Holder, the court in Valdez similarly found the same 

permissive inference instruction to be legally inappropriate. The statute supplies a 

rebuttable presumption of intent to distribute when certain quantities of a controlled 

substance are found in the defendant's possession (see K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5705[e]), 

while the pattern instruction provides only a permissive inference. PIK Crim. 4th 57.022

("may infer"). Put simply: "'A rebuttable presumption has a different legal effect than a 

permissive inference.'" Valdez, 316 Kan. at 8 (quoting Holder, 314 Kan. at 806.)

The pattern instruction reflected in Instruction No. 7 of the instant case is identical 

to that used in Valdez and Holder, and carries the same legal flaw declared by the 

Supreme Court. Consequently, the instruction was legally inappropriate because it failed 

to "fairly and accurately reflect" the language of the applicable law. Holder, 314 Kan. at 

806.

Finding the instruction legally inappropriate and noting neither party argues the 

factual appropriateness of the instruction, we next examine whether the instructional error 

meets the threshold of clear error. That is—are we firmly convinced that, had the legally 

inappropriate instruction not been given, the jury would have reached a different verdict

as to Everett's possession with intent to distribute? The burden is on Everett to establish 
8

such clear error. Holder, 314 Kan. at 807 (citing State v. Gentry, 310 Kan. 715, 721, 449 

P.3d 429 [2019]).

Everett initially argues the instruction inappropriately led the jury to infer his 

possession of the drugs, despite a lack of evidence, then guided the jury to improperly

infer an intent to distribute based on that possession. We disagree on both accounts.

First, Everett argues that the instructional presumption allowed the jury to 

inappropriately infer his possession of the methamphetamine when the State's evidence 

was "circumstantial at best." We do not reach the same conclusion, because the record 

demonstrates ample evidence showing that Everett had possession of the drugs.

The State's witness, Officer Sheldon Kenworthy, testified that at the time of the 

traffic stop, methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found in the vehicle Everett 

was driving. During the police interview, Everett stated that the methamphetamine 

discovered in the vehicle was "possibly" his, but he could not say for certain because he 

was not shown the drugs found in the vehicle. When asked about the amount of 

methamphetamine in the vehicle, Everett stated there would be around less than a 1/2 

ounce, approximately 14 grams. The KBI's test results confirmed the substance found in 

the second bag from the vehicle was almost exactly what Everett predicted—13.34 grams 

of methamphetamine. Everett also stated during the police interview that he was a drug 

user and he sometimes shared drugs with other people. And, Everett confirmed that he 

had possession of the vehicle, despite the title not being in his name, because he was 

making payments on the vehicle.

The evidence showed Everett knew about the methamphetamine in the vehicle. At 

the time of the traffic stop, he was in possession of the vehicle in which he had control 

and access to the drugs. For these reasons, the fact-finder did not need to infer from the 

given instruction that Everett had possession of the drugs because the evidence 
9

sufficiently showed as much. After review of the record, we find the jury would have 

reasonably concluded without a reasonable doubt that Everett had possession of the drugs

at the time of his arrest.

Next, Everett argues the presumption instruction may have interfered "with the 

critical question of whether [he] intended to distribute all or most of the" drugs found in 

the vehicle. He argues the State "presented ample evidence that [he] was a drug user" 

(emphasis added), which does not necessarily infer he intended to distribute the drugs. 

Everett contends it was unknown whether he intended to distribute any specific part of 

the methamphetamine because he was personally using and sharing the drug, so one or 

more jurors could have formed reasonable doubt regarding distribution.

Everett also distinguishes the facts here from those in Holder. In Holder, the 

defendant possessed more than 57 times the threshold drug amount to support the 

instructional inference, and the State presented no evidence of Holder's personal drug 

use, making the inference of distribution stronger. See Holder, 314 Kan. at 807. But here, 

the State provided evidence of the presence of just approximately 15 grams of 

methamphetamine—slightly over 4.5 times the threshold for the inference to apply. 

Everett maintains because he admitted personal use, and the State presented only minimal 

direct evidence of possession, without the instructional presumption one or more jurors

could have formed a reasonable doubt regarding Everett's intent to distribute.

But the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a finding of intent to 

distribute notwithstanding the instructional inference. Everett was found in possession of 

several items of drug paraphernalia at the time of his arrest. The officers retrieved a pipe 

from the vehicle and one baggie containing 2 grams of methamphetamine, which might 

alone suggest personal use. But the officers also retrieved from the vehicle a second 

baggie containing almost 14 grams of methamphetamine, 29 empty baggies—identical to 

the other two which contained methamphetamine—a digital scale, and 13 cell phones. 
10

State's witness, Undersheriff Christopher Bailey, testified that based on his training and 

experience, this amount of methamphetamine coupled with the other evidence found 

suggested that Everett had the intent to distribute. Additionally, one of the State's 

witnesses testified that based on his experience, Everett's action of counting with his 

fingers during the police interview appeared as if he were counting how much 

methamphetamine he had distributed to other people.

"Circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences properly drawn from that 

evidence can be sufficient to support a conviction even for the most serious crime." State 

v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657, 669, 414 P.3d 713 (2018). And, there is no requirement that 

the State prove a specific quantity of drug Everett intended to distribute—only the 

quantity he possessed. See State v. Scheuerman, 314 Kan. 583, 590-92, 502 P.3d 502 

(2022). The jury found Everett to be in possession of the methamphetamine and was able 

to review the evidence presented and find a logical connection between the possession 

and the intent to distribute, even without the inference instruction.

Furthermore, when considering the instruction, the jury was allowed to credit or 

reject the inference provided in the instruction based on whether the State met the burden 

of proving that Everett possessed the methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. 

Because the district court informed the jury they could reject the inference, and the 

burden never shifted to the defendant to prove the elements of the crime, there is no 

reasonable probability that the instruction would have mislead the jury. See also State v. 

Kriss, 232 Kan. 301, 304-05, 654 P.2d 942 (1982) ("Because [a] permissive [inference] 

leaves the trier of fact free to credit or reject the inference and does not shift the burden of 

proof, it affects the application of the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard only if, under 

the facts of the case, there is no rational way the trier could make the connection 

permitted by the inference. For only in that situation is there any risk that an explanation 

of the permissible inference to a jury, or its use by a jury, has caused the presumptively 

rational factfinder to make an erroneous factual determination.").
11

As a result, Everett's claim that Instruction No. 7 misled the jury to draw an 

improper inference of the intent to distribute which was disconnected from the evidence 

is unpersuasive. Everett has not sustained his burden to establish clear error, and we are 

"'convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not affect the 

outcome of the trial in light of the entire record . . . .'" Holder, 314 Kan. at 808.

THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR BY FAILING TO PROVIDE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE

Everett next contends that the district court erred when it failed to give jury 

instructions for lesser degrees of the charged offense, possession with intent to distribute. 

Everett admits he did not request the instructions or object to their omission during trial, 

so this court reviews the instructional issue for clear error consistent with the legal 

framework outlined above. K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 22-3414(3); see State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 

831, 845, 416 P.3d 116 (2018). Under this framework, the trial court's failure to give a 

legally and factually appropriate instruction is reversible only if its failure was clearly 

erroneous. Butler, 307 Kan. at 845.

The "clearly erroneous" principle is not a standard of review, i.e., a "framework 

for determining whether error occurred." Instead, it supplies a basis for determining if an 

error requires reversal of a conviction. State v. Lewis, 299 Kan. 828, 856, 326 P.3d 387 

(2014); State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 510, 286 P.3d 195 (2012).

Pursuant to K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5109(b)(1), a crime is a lesser included crime if 

it is "a lesser degree of the same crime." And an "'instruction on a lesser included crime is 

legally appropriate.'" Gentry, 310 Kan. at 721. The severity level of the crime of

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine is determined by the quantity of 

methamphetamine possessed by the defendant. K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5705(d)(3) states, 

in pertinent part:
12

"Violation of subsection (a) with respect to material containing any quantity 

of . . . methamphetamine, as defined by subsection (d)(3) or (f)(1) of K.S.A. 65-4107, and 

amendments thereto, or an analog thereof, is a:

(A) Drug severity level 4 felony if the quantity of the material was less than 1 

gram;

(B) drug severity level 3 felony if the quantity of the material was at least 1 gram 

but less than 3.5 grams;

(C) drug severity level 2 felony if the quantity of the material was at least 3.5 

grams but less than 100 grams; and

(D) drug severity level 1 felony if the quantity of the material was 100 grams or 

more."

The jury convicted Everett under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5705(d)(3)(C), for a 

quantity of at least 3.5 grams but less than 100 grams. Possession with intent to distribute 

lesser amounts, such as at least 1 gram but less than 3.5 grams under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 

21-5705(d)(3)(B), or less than one gram of methamphetamine under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 

21-5705(d)(3)(A), are lesser degrees of the same crime for which Everett was convicted. 

Thus, the lesser included instructions for these violations were legally appropriate 

because either would have been a lesser degree of the crime with which he was charged. 

Finding the omitted instructions legally appropriate, the remaining question is whether 

the lesser included instructions would have been factually appropriate.

Everett argues that based on his admission of being a user of methamphetamine, 

"one or more jurors could have easily formed a reasonable doubt regarding the amount 

Mr. Everett intended to personally use and the amount he intended to share with his 

friends." Because lesser amounts are included in the amount found, Everett believes a 

jury could have found that he intended to only distribute some lesser amount than 3.5 

grams of methamphetamine. Everett also argues that since he could have had the intent to 

use most of the methamphetamine himself, rather than distributing it, there is a 
13

reasonable possibility that the jury could have reached a different verdict if instructed on

the lesser degrees of the same crime.

In State v. Palmer, No. 110,624, 2015 WL 802733, at *7 (Kan. App. 2015) 

(unpublished opinion), another panel of this court rejected this very argument, stating:

"K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5705 only requires proof of the quantity of a controlled substance 

found in a defendant's possession, not the quantity that the defendant may have intended 

to distribute. Because Palmer did not possess less than 3.5 grams of methamphetamine, 

lesser included instructions corresponding to severity levels 3 and 4 possession with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine were not factually appropriate."

Everett cites to State v. Scheuerman, 314 Kan. 583, 591, 502 P.3d 502 (2022), 

wherein the Kansas Supreme Court discussed this court's holding in Palmer. But our high

court only reviewed K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5705 in the context of a challenge to the 

sufficiency of evidence. 314 Kan. at 591. The court specifically stated that "the test for 

the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is distinct from—although related 

to—the 'factual appropriateness' test for the giving of lesser included offense 

instructions." 314 Kan. at 592. It neither overruled nor affirmed Palmer, but rather, left 

"for another day the matter of whether a specifically defined quantity of substance, alone, 

may constitute 'some evidence' that would reasonably justify a lesser included offense 

instruction under K.S.A. 22-3414(3)." Scheuerman, 314 Kan. at 592. Therefore, Everett's 

application of Scheuerman on this issue is out of context and inapplicable.

We find the reasoning and ruling of the panel in Palmer persuasive. K.S.A. 2021 

Supp. 21-5705(e) does not prescribe any relevance to the quantity of the drug intended to 

be distributed. Palmer, 2015 WL 802733, at *4. Because Everett did not possess less than 

3.5 grams of methamphetamine, the lesser included offense instructions corresponding to 

severity levels 3 and 4 under K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-5705(d)(3)(A) and (B) were not 

factually appropriate. Applying the analysis of the court in Palmer, the district court was 
14

not required to deliver such instructions, and we find the district court did not clearly err 

by failing to provide them.

WE DECLINE TO REACH WHETHER EVERETT'S TRIAL COUNSEL

PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

Everett's final argument is that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of 

counsel by pursuing a guilt-based defense without his express permission. Everett's 

appointed defense counsel asked the trial court to give the jury a lesser included offense 

instruction for simple possession. In her closing argument, defense counsel asked the jury 

to "just convict my client of the possession charge" and "consider that my client might 

only be in possession as opposed to distribution . . . and consider this may be a possession 

case rather than a distribution case." And, trial counsel never asked the jury to find 

Everett not guilty in her closing argument. Everett admits, however, that he did not raise 

any issue about his counsel's apparent pursuit of a guilt-based defense on the record.

Because Everett did not raise this issue before the district court, the State contends 

that he is improperly raising this issue for the first time on appeal. The State also argues 

Everett never raised any disagreement with his trial counsel's strategy during the trial and 

that the record lacks any evidence of such claims.

Appellate courts generally will not consider an allegation of ineffective assistance 

of counsel raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483, 437 P.3d 

953 (2019). The factual aspects of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel require that 

the matter be resolved through a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion or through a request for remand 

to the district court for an evidentiary hearing under State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117, 

119-21, 716 P.2d 580 (1986). An appellate court may consider a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel for the first time on appeal only when there are no factual issues, 
15

and the two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test can be applied as a matter of law 

based upon the appellate record. Salary, 309 Kan. at 483-84.

If an appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved on 

the record, the appellate court is not obligated to sua sponte remand for a Van Cleave 

hearing when it has not been requested by the appellant. See Mundy v. State, 307 Kan. 

280, 299-300, 408 P.3d 965 (2018).

Notably, Everett does not ask this court to remand for a Van Cleave hearing. 

Instead, he demands this court reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial because 

his claims his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and right to a jury trial were violated.

Unfortunately for Everett, the record is insufficient for this court to analyze this 

issue for the first time on appeal. Everett argues the record does not show he agreed to a 

guilt-based defense on the record, but he never claims he disagreed with his trial 

counsel's strategy or directs this court to any evidence of an earlier complaint.

The Kansas Supreme Court recently encountered a similar situation in State v. 

Hilyard, 316 Kan. 326, 2022 WL 3568416 (Kan. 2022). There, Hilyard likewise argued 

"there must be an adequate showing on the record that her trial counsel received her 

informed consent to pursue a guilt-based defense." 316 Kan. at 336.

But, as in the case before us, the record was devoid of any indication Hilyard 

objected to such a defense strategy. The Supreme Court notes:

"Hilyard does not claim she objected to—or even complained of—a guilt-based defense. 

In fact, she may have consented to such a defense. Hilyard does not say, and we do not 

know. She argues simply that by judicial fiat we should create a rule which presumes 
16 

there is no consent to a guilt-based defense unless that consent is made on the record." 

316 Kan. at 337. 

Our Supreme Court found: 

"The only dispute Hilyard offers is whether she consented to the guilt-based 

defense; if she told her attorney she did not want to use a guilt-based defense and they 

used one anyway, it would certainly be ineffective assistance of counsel. Without a rule 

requiring either on-the-record consent or on-the-record objection, an evidentiary hearing 

would be the proper avenue to determine whether Hilyard opposed her trial counsel's 

defense strategy. Quite simply, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to 

obtain consent for a guilt-based defense must be proved below. It has not been. Hilyard 

did not ask for a remand for an evidentiary hearing in her appeal, which she states was an 

intentional choice. Both her brief and her reply brief argue that '[t]he only proper remedy 

is to reverse and remand for a new trial.' As this court demonstrated in [State v. ]Dull, 

[298 Kan. 832, 317 P.3d 104 (2014)] absent a request from the defendant, it need not 

remand a case for an evidentiary hearing to resolve an ineffective assistance claim raised 

for the first time on direct appeal. Dull, 298 Kan. at 839-40. 

"No remand for a Van Cleave hearing was requested and one will not be ordered 

sua sponte by this court. 

"In sum, this issue is not preserved and we decline review." Hilyard, 316 Kan. at

339-40. 

Everett directs us to an earlier Kansas Supreme Court case, State v. Carter, 270 

Kan. 426, 14 P.3d 1138 (2000), and to the United States Supreme Court case of McCoy v.

Louisiana, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 1508, 200 L. Ed. 2d 821 (2018). Both cases are 

distinguishable from the facts here. In Carter, the court reversed Carter's conviction and 

held that Carter's trial counsel effectively disregarded Carter's Sixth Amendment right to 

counsel and his due process right to a fair trial by presenting a guilt-based defense against 

Carter's wishes. 270 Kan. at 440-41. 
17 

But, unlike the case before us and unlike Hilyard, "the defendant in Carter

maintained his total innocence and complained vociferously—on the record—more than 

once when his defense counsel attempted to use a guilt-based defense." Hilyard, 316 

Kan. at 338. And because the record demonstrated Carter's complaints and the parties did 

not dispute counsel's actions, the record was sufficient to decide the issue on direct 

appeal. Therefore, "[t]he record in Carter established one of the 'extremely rare' times the 

ineffectiveness claim could be resolved when raised first on appeal." 316 Kan. at 338 

(citing Carter, 270 Kan. at 432-33). 

As in Carter, in McCoy, the United States Supreme Court found a defendant has

the right to maintain innocence at the guilt phase of trial. 584 U.S. at ___. But unlike the 

facts before us, in McCoy, the defendant was "furious" regarding his counsel's planned 

concession to guilt and his attorney knew of his client's "complete opposition;" in fact, 

McCoy sought to terminate his attorney's representation as a result. 584 U.S. at ___. 

Because factual issues remain unresolved in the record before us, this court cannot 

apply the ineffective assistance of counsel test as a matter of law based upon the appellate 

record. See Wimbley v. State, 292 Kan. 796, 807, 275 P.3d 35 (2011). As such, like the 

Kansas Supreme Court in Hilyard, we reject Everett's claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel without remanding for a Van Cleave hearing. 

For these reasons, this panel rejects Everett's ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim as unpreserved. 

Affirmed.