Opinion ID: 2456463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Failure to File a Reply Brief or Motion for Reconsideration

Text: Holmes argued to the Court of Appeals panel that his appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to file a reply brief and a motion for reconsideration after our decision in Holmes II. When the panel rejected this point, Holmes did not present it for our potential analysis when he filed his petition for review. Accordingly, it has not been preserved for review. See Supreme Court Rule 8.03(a)(5)(c) and (g)(1) (2010 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 69). Even if this point had been preserved, we hold it has no merit, primarily for the reasons provided by the panel. Holmes III, 2009 WL 2501114, at . Reversed and remanded with directions for an evidentiary hearing on the videotape and transcript issue. JAMES A. PATTON, District Judge, assigned.