Court Opinion

ID: 9437368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 03:58:35.258224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.725156
License: Public Domain

HENRY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I fully agree with the majority that the procedural bar applied by the district court did not constitute a firmly established and regularly followed rule under Kansas law. As a result, Mr. Anderson’s petition should not have been dismissed.
I write separately to note an additional concern: At the time Mr. Anderson complained about his trial counsel, he was still represented by that counsel. In those circumstances, it is not clear that a defendant is required to raise on direct appeal his pro se ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See State v. Bowen, 259 Kan. 798, 915 P.2d 120, 125 (1996) (stating that an issue was not before the appellate court because “the defendant had counsel in this case and counsel did not raise the issue”).