Kinzel v. State

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Kinzel v. State

2002 ME 84, 797 A.2d 731, 2002 Me. LEXIS 99, 2002 WL 1058583

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedMay 29, 2002

DocketNo. Aro-01-351

StatusPublished

This text of 2002 ME 84 (Kinzel v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kinzel v. State, 2002 ME 84, 797 A.2d 731, 2002 Me. LEXIS 99, 2002 WL 1058583 (Me. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

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, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000) (citing Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 89 S.Ct. 1715, 23 L.Ed.2d 340 (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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000) (citing Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 89 S.Ct. 1715, 23 L.Ed.2d 340 (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 ME 84, 797 A.2d 731, 2002 Me. LEXIS 99, 2002 WL 1058583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinzel-v-state-me-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack