these facts, a remand for the district court to inquire into
a potential conflict between the defendant and his appointed
attorney is unnecessary because the defendant retained a new
attorney for trial; he does not claim his trial attorney was
ineffective; and he does not otherwise identify any prejudice
flowing from the failure to inquire.
of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished
opinion filed June 2, 2017.
from Sedgwick District Court; Bruce C. Brown, judge.
G. Overstreet, of The Swain Law Office, of Lawrence, argued
the cause, and Sarah G. Swain and James W. Fuller, legal
intern, of the same firm, were on the brief for appellant.
A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, argued the cause,
and Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt,
attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee.
Bacon II petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals'
holding that his pro se motion quoting KRPC 1.3 of the Kansas
Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) (2019 Kan. S.Ct. R. 298)
did not trigger the Sedgwick County District Court's duty
to inquire into a potential conflict between Bacon and his
appointed attorney. We assume error but affirm because Bacon
retained new counsel for trial; he does not claim his trial
attorney was ineffective; and he has not otherwise identified
any prejudice flowing from the error. In short, Bacon got the
remedy he sought-new counsel for trial-and on this record,
there is no showing of prejudice.
evening in August 2014, an officer stopped Bacon and a young
woman for jaywalking in Sedgwick County. The officer soon
discovered that the young woman was a 17-year-old minor and
an active runaway. She told the officer that Bacon had driven
her to solicit prostitution on Broadway Street the last few
nights. Bacon later admitted this was true but insisted that
the prostitution was her idea, even though the money went to
State charged Bacon with one count of aggravated human
trafficking. See K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5426(b)(4). The
district court determined Bacon was indigent and appointed a
public defender, James Mamalis, to represent him.
continued Bacon's preliminary hearing seven times between
August and November 2014. Then on December 1, 2014, Bacon
filed a handwritten pro se "Motion for Diligence,"
which contained a copy of KRPC 1.3 and part of the
accompanying comments. See KRPC 1.3 (2019 Kan. S.Ct. R. 298).
The motion read in its entirety:
"K.R.P.C. 1.3 Motion For Diligence
"A Lawyer Shall Act with Reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a Client. "1) A lawyer should
pursue a matter [on behalf] of a client despite opposition
obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and may
take whatever Lawful and ethical measures are required to
vindicate [a] clients cause or endeavor a lawyer should act
with commitment and dedication to the interest of the client
and with zeal in advocacy upon the Clients behalf. However a
lawyer in [sic] not bound to press for every
advantage that might be realized for a client. A Lawyer has
professional discretion in determining the means by which a
matter should be pursued[.] See Rule 1.2[.] A lawyers work
load should be controlled so that each matter can be handled
adequately. 2) Perhaps no professional shortcoming is more
widely resented than procrastination. A clients interest
often can be adversely affected by the passage of time or the
change of conditions in extreme instances as when a lawyer
overlooks A Statute of limitations the clients legal position
May be destroyed even when the cliens [sic]
interests are not affected in substance However unreasonable
delay can cause A client needless Anxiety and undermind
[sic] Confidence in the lawyers Trustworthiness. 3)
unless the relationship is terminated as provided in rule
1.16 A lawyer should carry through to conclusion all matters
under-taken for a client if a lawyers employment is limited
to specific matters the relationship terminates when the
matter has been resolved."
later, Bacon filed the same pro se motion again. The district
court mailed a copy of the motion to Mamalis and the State.
The court advised Mamalis by letter, "We await further
direction from you as to how to proceed on this ...