Dobbs v. State

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 118,590

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

DONNELL ALAN DOBBS,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; J. DEXTER BURDETTE, judge. Opinion filed December 7,
2018. Affirmed.

Carl E. Cornwell, of Olathe, for appellant.

Ethan Zipf-Sigler, assistant district attorney, Marc A. Dupree Sr., and Derek Schmidt, attorney
general, for appellee.

Before MCANANY, P.J., PIERRON and LEBEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Donnell Alan Dobbs of first-degree murder,
attempted first-degree murder, and criminal possession of a firearm. The Kansas Supreme
Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. State v. Dobbs, 297 Kan. 1225, 308 P.3d
1258 (2013). Dobbs then filed a K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-1507 motion, arguing his court-
appointed attorney, Michael Highland, had been ineffective at trial. After an evidentiary
hearing, the district court denied the motion. Dobbs appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

While we recognize that Dobbs challenges his convictions, we begin with the facts
as found by a jury in the trial at which Dobbs was convicted. On October 3, 2008,
2

between 4:10 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., Dobbs walked into TJ's Barbershop with an assault rifle
and opened fire. TJ's Barbershop was located at the intersection of 13th Street and
Washington Boulevard. Three men inside the barbershop ran out the front door and into a
nearby wooded area. Dobbs pursued two other men, Muryel Josenberger and Mario
Mitchell, out the back door.

"Dobbs shot both men, killing Josenberger and severely wounding Mitchell, then
left the scene in a gray or silver Monte Carlo driven by a second man. Mitchell told the
first police officer who arrived after the shooting that two unknown black men walked
into the shop and began shooting. Mitchell was transported to Truman Medical Center
where he was treated for 12 gunshot wounds and remained for about 1 month.
"Twelve days after the shooting, Mitchell identified Dobbs as the gunman and
Casey Ellis as the driver of the getaway car. Two days later, the State filed a joint
complaint charging Dobbs and Ellis with first-degree premeditated murder and attempted
first-degree premeditated murder and additionally charging Dobbs with criminal
possession of a firearm. The following facts were developed at Dobbs and Ellis' joint
trial.
"The barbershop's owner, Anthony Jackson, testified that on the day of the
shooting, he was facing the back of the shop when he heard Mitchell say, ''[O]h shit,'' and
saw him run toward the back door. Jackson turned around and saw a man with an assault
rifle come through the front door and move toward the back of the shop. Another barber
at the shop, Damon Campbell, also saw a man walk into the shop with a 'long gun.'
"Jackson and Campbell testified they ran out the front door of the shop and into a
nearby wooded area as the gunman moved toward the back of the shop and began
shooting. At some point, Jackson heard the sounds of screeching tires and a fast-moving
vehicle. When Jackson and Campbell returned to the shop, they could see that
Josenberger and Mitchell had been shot and were lying on the ground outside the back
door.
"Jackson and Campbell both testified the gunman wore a hat and had a bandana
or scarf over his face covering the area under the gunman's eyes. Jackson did not recall
the color of the hat or scarf, but Campbell testified they were both blue. Sometime after
the shooting, Jackson and Campbell each viewed several photographs of potential
suspects, but neither man could identify the gunman.
3


"Diana Union testified she was driving toward the intersection of 13th Street and
Washington Boulevard when she saw two men running into a wooded area to the west of
TJ's Barbershop. As Union approached the barbershop parking lot, a gray Monte Carlo
exiting the parking lot nearly collided with Union's vehicle. Union could see a man
holding a gun out the passenger-side window. Union described the gun as black with
'holes in it around the barrel part of it ... [t]he way machine guns look.' Union stopped at a
nearby friend's home where her friend called 911 and reported the incident.
"Bobbie Montiel testified she was in her front yard near 14th Street and
Washington Boulevard when she heard screaming and gunshots. Montiel grabbed her
children and ran to the side of her house where she watched 'a silver Impala looking car'
or Monte Carlo going westbound on Washington. Montiel heard between 12 and 15
gunshots and assumed the gunfire originated from the silver car because the passenger
door was open as the car drove by. Montiel saw two black men inside the car, but she
could not identify either man. Montiel immediately called 911.
"The first officer to respond, Officer Glenn Jay Carter, found Mitchell and
Josenberger lying on the ground outside the barbershop. Josenberger was dead and
Mitchell was screaming. In response to questioning from Carter, Mitchell said he was
getting a haircut when two guys came in and started shooting. However, Mitchell told
Carter he did not know who shot him. According to Carter, Mitchell was coherent but
was primarily concerned with getting medical attention.
"Mitchell testified at trial regarding his prior relationship with Dobbs and his
recollection of the shooting and events following the shooting. Mitchell, who was 23
years old at the time of trial in 2009, testified he went to high school with Dobbs and
Ellis and had known them since the ninth or tenth grade. Mitchell identified both
defendants in the courtroom and said he had been 'cool' with Ellis in high school until
Ellis began a friendship with Dobbs.
"Mitchell testified he was sitting in a chair at TJ's Barbershop getting a haircut
when he saw Dobbs walk through the door. Mitchell testified Dobbs wore a hat on his
head and a bandana on his face and Mitchell could see only the space around his eyes.
Mitchell could not recall the color of the hat or the bandana, nor could he recall the
clothing worn by Dobbs. According to Mitchell, Dobbs carried some kind of assault rifle,
probably an AK-47 or AR-15.

4

"Upon seeing the gun, Mitchell took off running and told Josenberger to run.
Mitchell followed Josenberger out the back door of the barbershop. Mitchell heard 12 or
13 shots and was shot at least once before stumbling out the door. Outside, Mitchell saw
Josenberger lying on the ground and ran past his body before being 'shot some more' and
falling to the ground.
"Dobbs then approached Mitchell, stood over him, and attempted to shoot him
again. Mitchell heard a 'click, click, click,' and he assumed Dobbs' gun was empty.
Mitchell testified that by that point, the bandana had fallen from Dobbs' face and Mitchell
got a good look at Dobbs as he stood over him. Mitchell testified he had '[n]o doubt' that
Dobbs was the gunman.
"After Mitchell heard the gun click, he closed his eyes so Dobbs would believe
he was dead. When Dobbs ran off, Mitchell opened his eyes and saw Dobbs get into a
Monte Carlo that Mitchell recognized as belonging to Dobbs' brother. Mitchell could see
Casey Ellis driving the Monte Carlo, and he watched it go west on Washington
Boulevard.
"Mitchell recalled talking to an officer about 5 minutes after the Monte Carlo
drove off and asking for an ambulance. However, he could not recall telling the officer
that two men entered the shop and started shooting. Mitchell also testified he identified
Dobbs and Ellis from two separate photo lineups during a subsequent interview with
detectives.
"On cross-examination, defense counsel attempted to impeach Mitchell's
identification of Dobbs and Ellis, pointing out that Mitchell made various statements to
detectives explaining how he had been able to identify Dobbs and that he used uncertain
language in his identifications, including indicating the gunman 'looked like' Dobbs.
Defense counsel also emphasized that Mitchell made inconsistent statements regarding
whether Dobbs wore a hat on the day of the shooting and about whether the bandana
covered Dobbs' nose. Finally, in response to defense counsel's questioning regarding
prior convictions involving truth or veracity, Mitchell conceded he had two juvenile
adjudications, one for burglary and one for theft.
"On redirect, Mitchell clarified that although he used various statements to
describe how he knew or recognized Dobbs and Ellis, he did not intend to imply that he
was uncertain about his identification of either defendant.

5

"Claude Harper, a crime scene investigator, processed and videotaped the crime
scene, took photographs, and collected evidence. Harper identified a photograph of a
blood smear on the sidewalk in front of the barbershop and two swabs taken from that
blood smear. Harper also identified other evidence found at the scene, including a bloody
earring, several fired cartridges, a bullet fragment, and a live .223 caliber Remington
PMC cartridge. Harper testified that based on his training and experience, all of the
cartridges discovered at the scene were consistent with ammunition used in a military-
type rifle such as an AR-15 or M-16.
"Detective Bryan Block testified he obtained DNA samples from Dobbs,
Mitchell, and Josenberger, but that testing of the samples did not link Dobbs to the crime
scene. Testing revealed that Mitchell's blood matched the blood smear on the sidewalk in
front of the barbershop and the blood on the earring found at the scene.
"Based on witness reports, Block located the vehicle used in the homicide and
identified the owner of the vehicle as Dobbs' brother, [Deon] Dobbs. Block testified
officers found some type of 'magazine pouch' in the Monte Carlo and that the pouch
could be used to hold a gun magazine.
"Block interviewed Mitchell at the hospital 12 days after the shooting. According
to Block, although Mitchell was in pain and on medication, he was coherent and able to
talk. During the interview, Mitchell identified Dobbs as the gunman and Ellis as the
driver, and he seemed certain about both identifications." 297 Kan. at 1227-32.

In addition to the evidence presented, several other facts about Dobbs' trial are
relevant to his current claim. At the preliminary hearing, Ellis' attorney, Frank Martin,
asked Mitchell if he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the
shooting. Mitchell responded, "No. I don't smoke or drink anything. Cigarettes." But less
than a week before trial, the defense attorneys received Mitchell's medical records from
the time he was in the hospital after the shooting. One of those records included
Mitchell's hospital intake form. That form showed that Mitchell drank beer weekly and
used marijuana. The hospital had also performed a urinary drug screen that came back
positive. Highland subpoenaed the hospital records clerk, but he did not hear from her
before the start of trial.

6

On the first day of trial, the district court took up the State's motion in limine to
prevent the defense from addressing whether Mitchell was under the influence of drugs
or alcohol at the time of the shooting. Highland explained that he wished to use
information from Mitchell's intake form to impeach Mitchell as well as to show that
Mitchell may have been under the influence at the time of the shooting.

The State responded that a urine drug screen may come back positive if someone
had smoked marijuana any time within the past 21 days. Because the positive drug screen
could only show that Mitchell had used marijuana within 21 days of the shooting, the
State argued it was irrelevant to whether he was under the influence at the time of the
shooting.

The district court ruled that evidence of Mitchell's alcohol and drug use was
inadmissible to show he was under the influence at the time of the shooting based on the
current record. The court also ruled that Highland and Martin could ask Mitchell if he had
told the admitting nurse that he used drugs or alcohol. But if Mitchell denied it, they
could not use the form to impeach him without getting a witness to lay the foundation for
the form. The court conveyed it was willing to grant a continuance to allow the defense to
collect more evidence.

The district court then addressed the State's motion in limine to prevent testimony
that either the defendant or the victims had any gang affiliations. Highland told the court
that he was only going to have one or two witnesses. He had asked them both if they
were in a gang, because Highland did not want to put them on the stand if they were.
Both potential witnesses denied they were. Highland also said he would not be calling
some witnesses on his list because he "believe[d] they would be involved." The court
ultimately granted the motion.

7

By the second day of trial, the defense attorneys had learned that the State had
been unable to serve subpoenas on one of its witnesses, Marcus Hayes, and he had not
shown up for their pretrial conferences the week before trial. Hayes had been in the
barbershop at the time of the shooting. Highland advised Dobbs to request a continuance
so Highland could secure someone to lay a foundation for the intake form and try to find
Clark and Hayes. But Dobbs chose to go forward with the trial.

That same day, Dobbs also told the court that Highland had not come to visit him
the week before trial. Dobbs said he was not asking to have Highland replaced nor was
that his intention in bringing his complaint to the court's attention. He simply wanted it
on the record. He reiterated that he wanted to proceed with the trial, and he wanted
Highland to represent him.

At trial, Highland and Martin both asked Mitchell if he remembered the nurse
asking him if he used drugs or alcohol. He said he did not. He also explained that he had
quit smoking and drinking several weeks before the preliminary hearing. That was why
he said he did not smoke or drink. The intake form was never admitted into evidence.

After the State rested, neither Highland nor Martin gave an opening statement.
They also called no defense witnesses.

The jury ultimately acquitted Ellis of all charges, but found Dobbs guilty of first-
degree premeditated murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and criminal
possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court denied Dobbs' motion for a new
trial. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for
25 years for the first-degree murder conviction and a consecutive controlling prison
sentence of 155 months for the other two convictions.

8

After the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Dobbs' convictions and sentence on
direct appeal, Dobbs filed a K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-1507 motion. He raised many claims,
including that Highland had provided ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued
Highland had been ineffective for 18 reasons, including that Highland had failed to
present Dobbs' alibi defense; failed to get information about Mitchell's drug and alcohol
use before the jury; had waived opening statement; his voir dire was inadequate; and he
refused to let Dobbs testify. Dobbs' K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-1507 counsel filed a
supplemental brief highlighting these arguments as well as addressing Highland's failure
to call several other defense witnesses.

The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Dobbs' motion. The judge who
presided over Dobbs' trial also presided over the hearing. The court took judicial notice of
the records from the trial, and Dobbs presented several witnesses, including Highland.

Highland testified he had been a criminal defense attorney for 27 years. He
finished law school in 1990, and Dobbs' trial was in 2009. The district court had
appointed Highland to represent Dobbs, and that trial was not his first homicide defense.
Highland had a limited memory of the specifics of Dobbs' trial, because the trial had
happened 9 years before the evidentiary hearing, and he no longer had the file for Dobbs'
case.

Highland testified he always read through the discovery in his cases himself. If he
found something that might help his client, he investigated it. He said he also went
through discovery with all of his clients, so they could decide whether to accept a plea
agreement or go to trial.

Highland did not recall how many times he had visited Dobbs before trial.
According to an inmate visitation summary, Highland had visited Dobbs in jail twice:
once before the preliminary hearing for 32 minutes, and once on the second day of trial.
9

Highland did not dispute the information in the summary, but said he must have seen
Dobbs at some hearings. Highland also admitted that 32 minutes would probably not
have been enough time to go over the evidence in a murder trial. But he added that some
clients do not want to go over the discovery and just want to talk about what is going to
happen.

The discovery in Dobbs' case included a statement from Randall Shields. In that
statement, Shields named several people other than Dobbs who may have had a motive
for killing Josenberger. Highland did not remember Shields' statement, but said he must
have read it if it was in the discovery. He also did not remember talking to Shields and
admitted he probably did not talk to the officer who took Shields' statement. He said that
he was sure he read the statement and spoke with someone about it at the time. He "must
have determined that they weren't viable candidates," but he could not remember why.

Highland also did not remember talking to anyone about Keith Wright, another
potential suspect in the case. He testified that he had not gone out to try to find Wright.
He also agreed he had not asked about Wright at trial.

Highland did remember spending several hours with Martin on a few occasions
preparing for trial. They went through discovery together and tried to figure out a
defense. He also remembered driving to the barbershop with Martin and investigating the
area. His strategy at trial was to put the State to its proof and attack Mitchell's credibility.

Highland "[v]aguely" remembered that at the start of the trial he learned that the
State was not going to call Clark and Hayes. Highland remembered that he had not
subpoenaed either of those witnesses. But he could not remember if he talked to Dobbs
about continuing the trial so he could find them.

10

Highland said he had read Dobbs' motion stating that Highland's voir dire only
took up six pages of the trial transcript. He did not know how long the State's voir dire
was, but he "assumed it was very, very lengthy and covered most everything." He said
that if the State had already covered something in its voir dire, he did not like to ask the
same questions because he did not want to "turn the jury against [his] client for wasting
their time."

Highland testified that he was not surprised that he had not given an opening
statement. He explained he did not like to give an opening statement before the State's
case-in-chief, because he did not want to harm his client by incorrectly stating what the
evidence would be. He usually waited until the State rested to give an opening statement.
Even then, he might decline to do so if he thought the State had not proven its case.

Highland admitted he filed a notice of alibi, listing eight potential witnesses who
would testify Dobbs was at a funeral or with other funeral attendees at the time of the
murder. He and Ellis' attorney had investigated the potential alibi, but he did not find it
credible. He also remembered talking to Deon and Dobbs' mother, Davilyn. He did not
believe the proposed witnesses would be helpful. He could not remember filing the notice
of alibi but explained he may have done it just to have it on file.

Highland did not remember if he talked to Dobbs about testifying. He disputed
that he had told Dobbs not to testify, because he had never done that. He acknowledged
that deciding whether to testify is one of the few decisions a defendant could make, and
"I would never tell [Dobbs] that I would not allow him to."

Dobbs also testified at the hearing. He told the court that on the day of the murder,
he had gone to his friend's funeral at a church at 8th and Washington and spent the rest of
the day with friends and family. The funeral service started at 11 a.m. After the service,
11

he stayed in the church parking lot socializing for one or two hours. Deon then drove him
to his friend's aunt's house on 12th Street.

Dobbs said he returned to the church around "4:00 or 4:15" and had another meal.
He then helped clean up the church and went with Deon to take a friend home. Deon then
dropped Dobbs off at Davilyn's home, and Deon went to pick Davilyn up from work.
Dobbs spent the rest of the night at Davilyn's.

Dobbs said that Highland had come to talk to him in jail on the second day of trial.
At that meeting, Highland said he did not think they should present the alibi defense
because "the prosecutor would catch them up in their testimonies." He asked if Highland
had spoken with the witnesses, and Highland said no. But Dobbs later testified that
Highland did not tell him at that meeting whether he had spoken to the witnesses and did
not explain why he was not going to call them.

Dobbs said he had intended to testify at his trial. He told Highland he wanted to
testify if Highland was not going to call his alibi witnesses. But Highland never prepared
him to testify. Dobbs also said Highland had told him testifying was not a good idea and
he should not do it. Dobbs said Highland never told him he had a constitutional right to
testify and the decision was ultimately his to make.

Dobbs testified that Highland came to visit him in jail one time before trial. He
asked Highland to come more, and he wrote Highland several letters, but Highland never
answered them. Dobbs also testified he never saw the discovery in his case. He asked
Highland to see it at least four times. But Highland never let him see it and did not
explain why. Dobbs had not heard of Shields, Wright, or Hayes before his trial.

Dobbs testified that he had a conversation with Highland in the holding cell at
sentencing. Highland asked if Dobbs was upset with him, and Dobbs said he was not.
12

Highland said that when Dobbs filed an appeal, he could argue Highland was ineffective.
Dobbs did not know why Highland had said that.

Four of the eight witnesses listed in Dobbs' alibi notice also testified at the
hearing. Deon stated he was at Davilyn's home the morning of the shooting. He also
remembered going to a funeral that day. He said Highland never talked to him about a
possible alibi for Dobbs.

Marvin Dudley testified that he was with Dobbs all day on the day of the murder.
He said he would have been willing to testify, but nobody came to talk to him, including
the police. Dudley said he was with Dobbs when Dobbs was arrested. He also knew then
that Dobbs had been arrested for homicide. He believed that if he had made a statement
to police, Dobbs would have been released. But he did not do so.

Davilyn testified that on the day of the murder, Deon picked her up from work in
his gray four-door Monte Carlo. She usually got off work at five o'clock. When they got
back to her house, Dobbs was there. She said she never spoke with Highland about being
a potential witness. She said she had called Highland several times and had left three
messages for him at his office. But he never returned her calls.

Jawan Robinson said he went to the funeral with Dobbs. After the funeral, they
hung out for a bit at the church, and then Dobbs took Robinson home in the afternoon. He
did not know the exact time he went home. He also did not remember if Dobbs was
driving or what car they were in. Robinson said he never spoke to Highland before the
trial, but he had a brief conversation with Highland in the hallway outside the courtroom
during the trial.

Dobbs also called two other witnesses at the hearing: Shields and Martin. Shields
testified that police had come to talk to him during their investigation. They asked
13

Shields if he might know who shot Josenberger. Shields said a group of people had
approached him and Josenberger outside a club a few weeks earlier, and they threatened
Josenberger. In his original statement, Shields gave police the names of the people in that
group. But at the evidentiary hearing, Shields denied giving any names. He also denied
knowing any of the people listed in his statement. He added that he did not know who
shot Josenberger.

Martin testified that he also did not have a "strong recollection" of the trial or his
preparation for the trial. He did not remember working with Highland "to any great
extent" to prepare their defenses He did remember spending about 30 to 45 minutes with
Highland at the barbershop. He was also sure he had had some conversations with
Highland. But he could not remember what they were about.

Martin had also filed an alibi notice, but he had not presented an alibi defense at
trial. (He remembered talking to some witnesses and reviewing some photographs. But he
did not remember why he pursued no alibi defense at trial.

The district court ultimately denied Dobbs' motion. The court found that Dobbs
had failed to establish prejudice because of Highland's failure to call Shields, because
Shields did not know who shot Josenberger. Likewise, Dobbs had failed to establish
prejudice because of Highland's failure to subpoena Hayes because Dobbs chose not to
ask for a continuance.

As for Highland's failure to present any alibi witnesses, the district court held
Highland had made a strategic decision based on a reasonable investigation. The court
continued that Highland's advice to Dobbs not to testify was based on this investigation.

The district court found that the cross-examination of Mitchell was extensive.
Mitchell was questioned about every inconsistent statement he made. According to the
14

court, both Highland and Martin did a good job. The district court also held that Highland
made a strategic decision about the length of voir dire and whether to give an opening
statement. The court continued that Highland covered many of the important topics for
the defense in his voir dire, and the State's voir dire was also extensive.

The district court emphasized that counsel must be granted some deference. The
court also highlighted the strengths of the State's case, noting that Mitchell had identified
Dobbs as the shooter and it was up to the jury to determine his credibility.

Dobbs appeals.

To begin with, Dobbs raised several claims in his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion which
he does not raise on appeal. As a result, Dobbs has waived and abandoned these issues.
State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 750, 758, 368 P.3d 1065 (2016).

Failure to Present Defense Witnesses

On appeal, Dobbs argues the district court erred in denying his claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel. He first argues that Highland was ineffective because Highland
failed to call several witnesses at trial. He contends that Highland should have called
Shields, Hayes, Wright, and his alibi witnesses.

A claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel presents mixed questions of fact
and law. When the district court conducts a full evidentiary hearing on such claims, this
court determines whether substantial competent evidence supports the district court's
findings and whether those factual findings support the court's legal conclusions. This
court applies a de novo standard to the district court's conclusions of law. Fuller v. State,
303 Kan. 478, 485, 363 P.3d 373 (2015).

15

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant
must establish (1) that the performance of defense counsel was deficient under the totality
of the circumstances, and (2) prejudice. Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875, 882, 335
P.3d 1162 (2014). To establish prejudice, the defendant must show a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding
would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome. State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 426, 362 P.3d 828
(2015).

Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance in a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel is highly deferential and requires consideration of all the evidence before the
judge or jury. The reviewing court must strongly presume that counsel's conduct fell
within the broad range of reasonable professional assistance. State v. Kelly, 298 Kan. 965,
970, 318 P.3d 987 (2014).

Generally, "'[i]t is within the province of a lawyer to decide what witnesses to call,
whether and how to conduct cross-examination, and other strategic and tactical
decisions.' [Citation omitted.]" Sola-Morales, 300 Kan. at 887. If counsel has made a
strategic decision after making a thorough investigation of the law and the facts relevant
to the realistically available options, then counsel's decision is virtually unchallengeable.
Strategic decisions made after a less than comprehensive investigation are reasonable
exactly to the extent a reasonable professional judgment supports the limitations on the
investigation. State v. Cheatham, 296 Kan. 417, 437, 292 P.3d 318 (2013). "The
defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that trial counsel's alleged deficiencies were
not the result of strategy." State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 624, 644, 88 P.3d 218 (2004).

Failure to Subpoena Wright

16

First, Dobbs argues Highland erred in failing to call Wright as a witness. At the
evidentiary hearing, Dobbs produced a canceled pickup order from the Kansas City,
Kansas Police Department for Wright, showing Wright was a suspect in the case.
Highland's testimony suggests Highland did not speak with Wright. But Dobbs has failed
to show prejudice because he has proffered no testimony from Wright.

Failure to Subpoena Shields

Next, Dobbs argues Highland erred in failing to call Shields. Highland testified
that he could not specifically remember reading Shields' statement but he was sure he had
looked into it. He said he must have decided it did not warrant any more investigation,
but he could not remember why. Shields testified that Highland never came to talk to
him. Based on this evidence, we cannot readily conclude that Highland did the necessary
investigation to make the strategic decision not to call Shields as a witness.

That said, the district court properly found that Highland's failure to call Shields
did not prejudice Dobbs. Shields was not an eyewitness to the crime, and he did not know
who had killed Josenberger. In his original statement, Shields had given a list of people
who may have had motive to kill Josenberger. But at the evidentiary hearing, Shields
denied giving those names and denied knowing the people listed. He merely testified a
group of unknown people had gotten into a fight with Josenberger a few weeks before the
shooting. This evidence is unlikely to have detracted from Mitchell's eyewitness
identification.

As the State also points out, Shields testimony was likely inadmissible. "[W]ithout
additional evidence showing that a third party could have committed the crime . . .,
evidence merely suggesting that someone other than the defendant had a motive to
commit the crime has little probative value and can be properly excluded at trial." State v.
Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 432, 329 P.3d 1169 (2014). Shields could only testify that
17

someone else may have had a motive kill Josenberger. Dobbs had no other evidence to
support this theory.

Failure to Subpoena Hayes

Next, Dobbs argues that Highland should have personally subpoenaed Hayes.
Dobbs claims Hayes' statement was critical to his defense because Hayes "gave a
description of the killer that was entirely different than what the defendant looked like."
In his statement to police, Hayes said he would not be able to identify the shooter from a
photo, but described him as kind of tall, with a kind of medium build, and braids. At the
evidentiary hearing, Dobbs testified that he was 5'8 and weighed 260 pounds when he
was arrested. He had short hair at the time, and he had never had braids.

The district court declined to find if Highland was deficient for failing to subpoena
Hayes personally. Instead, the court found that Highland's failure did not prejudice
Dobbs. The court noted that Dobbs had the opportunity to ask for a continuance once he
learned Hayes was not going to show up for trial. But Dobbs chose to go on to trial
against Highland's advice.

Granted, Highland admitted that he did not personally subpoena Hayes. But Dobbs
has not shown that Highland was unreasonable in failing to do so. The State suggests that
it would have been reasonable for Highland to believe that the State would be able to
produce Hayes for trial.

Even if Highland's performance were deficient, Dobbs has failed to show
prejudice. For one, he has not shown that Highland would have been able to serve Hayes
with a subpoena when the State could not. Nor has he shown that Hayes would have
appeared if Highland had personally subpoenaed him.

18

Hayes also did not testify at the evidentiary hearing, so we do not know for sure
what he would have said at trial. But assuming his testimony would have been consistent
with his statement, it likely would not have changed the verdict. Hayes could not identify
the shooter, and his description was fairly vague. The three other eyewitnesses also
testified or provided statements describing the shooter as having a medium build. And
while Hayes said the shooter had braids, the other three eyewitnesses said the shooter was
wearing a hat.

Failure to Subpoena Alibi Witnesses

Dobbs next argues that Highland was ineffective because he did not call Dobbs'
alibi witnesses. But the district court found that Highland had made a reasonable strategic
decision not to present these witnesses. The evidence supports this finding. Highland
testified that he had investigated Dobbs' proposed alibi and found it was not credible. He
believed the alibi witnesses were weak. He did not believe their statements because "the
timeline was just too far apart." He said they likely would not have withstood the State's
cross-examination, and he believed they would have hurt Dobbs' defense.

But even if Highland had erred in failing to call Dobbs' alibi witnesses, Dobbs has
not shown prejudice. The evidentiary hearing showed that Dobbs had weak alibi
witnesses. "An alibi places the defendant at the relevant time in a different place than the
scene involved and so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for the accused to be
the guilty party." State v. Pham, 234 Kan. 649, 656, 675 P.2d 848 (1984). None of the
witnesses who testified at Dobbs' evidentiary hearing could definitively place Dobbs at
another location at the time of the shooting.

For instance, Davilyn testified that Dobbs was at her home after she got back from
work sometime after five. But the shooting happened sometime between 4:10 and 4:30.
She did not say anything about where Dobbs had been before she got home. She also did
19

not testify that Deon could not have made it in time to pick her up in his car if his car was
involved in the shooting.

Robinson, Dudley, and Deon also provided vague testimony. Robinson testified he
was with Dobbs on the day of the shooting but could not provide specific details, like
what time Dobbs took him home or who was driving. His testimony also appeared to
conflict with Dobbs'. Robinson said they hung out at the church for a bit before Dobbs
took him home. But Dobbs testified that he left the church, came back, and then took his
friend home.

Likewise, Dudley testified he was with Dobbs "all day," but he gave no specific
times. Nor did he say where they were. Finally, Deon testified that he went to the funeral
that morning, but he did not say anything about being with Dobbs or where Dobbs was at
the time of the shooting in the afternoon.

The credibility of Deon and Dudley would have also been susceptible to question
at trial. In State v. Miller, 259 Kan. 478, 482, 912 P.2d 722 (1996), the Kansas Supreme
Court held that the State may test the credibility of an alibi by noting the alibi witnesses'
delay in coming forward to exonerate the defendant and the defendant's delay in
contacting the alibi witness.

"'While it is generally true that a defendant is under no obligation to present evidence in
his defense prior to time of trial, it does seem natural that a person who knew facts which
would protect a defendant, particularly a family member, would come forward when the
opportunity existed rather than remain silent. [Citation omitted.] This silence raises
proper concern for the credibility of the story and is a proper subject of inquiry.' [Citation
omitted.]" 259 Kan. at 482.

At the evidentiary hearing, Dudley testified that he did not disclose what he knew
to police, even though he believed Dobbs would have been released if he had done so.
20

And at trial, Detective Block testified that he tried to get a statement from Deon, Dobbs'
brother, but Deon would not come in to give one. See Miller, 259 Kan. at 480-82 (finding
State did not err in impeaching alibi witnesses using "their own failure to come forward
with an alibi that might have secured [the defendant's] release").

As a final point, while Highland had limited memory of his trial preparation, the
record of the trial shows Highland investigated witnesses. During the discussion of the
State's motion to keep out evidence about any gang affiliations, Highland told the court
he had spoken to several witnesses and was intending to call some of them. And both
Jackson and Campbell testified that Highland had talked to them before trial. Dobbs has
therefore failed to show that Highland was ineffective for not calling these witnesses.

Failure to Impeach a Witness

Dobbs argues that Highland failed to impeach Mitchell properly. He asserts that
Mitchell "lied to the police about having drugs in his system at the time of the shooting."
Dobbs' argues that Highland failed to impeach Mitchell properly because "[he] was not
able to get this information into the record for the jury to consider." He adds: "That
failure was highly prejudicial because had the jury known that Mitchell not only lied to
police, but was under the influence of drugs at the time of the shooting, his testimony
could have been disregarded by the jury, thus changing the verdict."

The record does not show that Mitchell was under the influence of alcohol or
drugs at the time of the shooting. Nor does it show that Mitchell ever lied to police.
Dobbs is presumably referring to the conflicting statements about Mitchell's drug and
alcohol use from the intake form and at the preliminary hearing. But Dobbs has provided
no evidence or argument on how Highland should have been able to get this information
before the jury.

21

All the same, Highland's cross-examination was extensive. Highland introduced
all of Mitchell's other inconsistent statements. He asked Mitchell about his inability to
identify the shooter when police first arrived on the scene. He asked Mitchell why he had
testified at the preliminary that Dobbs was not wearing a hat, but testified at trial that
Dobbs was wearing a hat. He also asked why Mitchell had said the shooter "looked like"
Dobbs when he gave his statement to police two weeks after the shooting. And Highland
asked why when police asked him how he knew it was Dobbs', Mitchell responded
"'cause there have been too many incidents before."

The district court also added in its finding: "Everything was done very well. . . . I
thought both [Highland and Martin] did a good job." And because the judge who ruled on
Dobbs' motion also presided over his trial, he was in a unique position to determine
whether Highland's cross-examination had been deficient. See Rowland v. State, 289
Kan. 1076, 1084, 219 P.3d 1212 (2009) (noting that in an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim that district court judge who presided over proceedings is "usually . . . in
the best position to judge the merits of many such claims"). Dobbs has failed to show that
Highland was ineffective on this point.

Failure to Investigate Alibi Before Advising Defendant Whether to Testify?

Before the district court, Dobbs argued that Highland had prevented him from
testifying. But for the first time on appeal, Dobbs argues that Highland failed to do the
investigation necessary to advise him whether to testify. Generally, a party may not assert
a new legal theory for the first time on appeal. State v. Kelly, 298 Kan. 965, 971, 318
P.3d 987 (2014). While there are exceptions to this rule, Dobbs has not explained why we
should address his argument for the first time on appeal. State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041,
1044, 350 P.3d 1068 (2015); State v. Phillips, 299 Kan. 479, 493, 325 P.3d 1095 (2014).

22

That said, his claim lacks merit. Counsel may perform deficiently in advising a
defendant not to testify if that advice is not based on a reasonable investigation. State v.
Rice, 261 Kan. 567, 606-07, 932 P.2d 981 (1997). For example, in Rice, the Kansas
Supreme Court found that trial counsel, who was not licensed in Kansas, performed
deficiently in advising the defendant not to testify based on a flawed understanding of
Kansas evidentiary rules instead of "any justifiable strategic considerations." 261 Kan. at
607.

Dobbs' briefly cites Rice in his brief, but his case is distinguishable. Here, the
district court found that Highland had conducted a reasonable investigation into Dobbs'
alibi defense and had found it wanting. Highland then made a strategic decision in
advising Dobbs not to testify. Dobbs thus has not established deficient performance.

As for his prejudice argument, Dobbs provides only a conclusory sentence,
declaring that Highland's deficient performance prejudiced him "by resulting in an
improper conviction and sentence." Granted, if Dobbs had testified, he would have
provided himself an alibi, which could have been helpful given there were no other
defense witnesses. That said, Dobbs would have testified he was at a church function at
the time of the shooting, but has been unable to produce any witnesses who could
corroborate his story. Additionally, Dobbs' alibi would have put him in the vicinity of the
shooting at the time of the shooting with the getaway car. If Dobbs did not do well under
cross-examination, he could have done as much harm as good. Thus, he has failed to
show there is a reasonable possibility of a different outcome.

Cumulative Error

Also, for the first time on appeal, Dobbs argues that Highland's cumulative errors
deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. Again, Dobbs has not explained why we
23

should hear his argument for the first time on appeal. All the same, this claim also lacks
merit.

The cumulative effect of trial counsel's individual errors may support an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. State v. Thompson, 293 Kan. 704, 721, 270 P.3d
1089 (2011); Hunt v. State, 48 Kan. App. 2d 1023, 1046, 301 P.3d 755 (2013). In
analyzing such a claim, Kansas courts have applied the test for cumulative trial errors.
Thompson, 293 Kan. at 721; Hunt, 48 Kan. App. 2d at 1046. Under that test, we must
determine whether the totality of the circumstances establish that defendant was
substantially prejudiced by cumulative errors and was denied a fair trial. In assessing the
cumulative effect of errors during the trial, the appellate court examines the errors in the
context of the entire record, considering how the trial judge dealt with the errors as they
arose; the nature and number of errors and their interrelationship, if any; and the overall
strength of the evidence. State v. Holt, 300 Kan. 985, 1007, 336 P.3d 312 (2014).

In this issue, Dobbs' raises three new errors not discussed before: Highand's failure
to visit or communicate with him; Highland's inadequate voir dire; and Highand's failure
to give an opening statement. Dobbs argues that Highland "only visited him twice despite
Dobbs' numerous requests for a visit." He also "failed to ask the jury basic questions
about their previous trial experience, their thoughts on the charges, alibi witnesses,
defense objections, and other matters that are pertinent to a proper voir dire." He adds
that "Highland's trial deficiency was perhaps most evident when he waived making an
opening statement in the case, a practice that is almost unheard of amongst qualified
defense attorneys."

At the evidentiary hearing, Highland did not dispute the inmate visitation
summary showing that Highland visited Dobbs in jail only twice. As the district court
pointed out, though, Dobbs had a chance before trial to lodge any complaints he may
have against Highland. Dobbs only complaint was that Highland did not visit him the
24

week before trial. He did not tell the court that Highland had barely visited at all or that
Highland was not communicating with him. And when the court asked if Dobbs wished
to proceed with Highland's representation, Dobbs said he did.

As for Highland's voir dire, it was short, taking up only six pages of the trial
transcript. In comparison, Martin's voir dire took up 25 pages, and the State's voir dire
took up almost 200 pages. But Highland testified that he usually has a short voir dire for
strategic reasons. And the district court found that Highland covered the most important
points for the defense, such as the presumption of innocence and the State's burden of
proof. Highland's voir dire was not deficient.

As for any possible prejudice, the district court found that the State's voir dire was
extensive, and it "always does a pretty good job of hitting all of the points that are
necessary, including points for the defense." The State also covered some points that
Dobbs argues Highland should have covered, including if the jurors knew any homicide
victims; if the jurors knew someone who had been arrested, charged, or convicted of
homicide; and how to treat objections from either party.

As for Highland's failure to give an opening statement, the district court again
found this was a strategic decision. And at the evidentiary hearing, Highland explained
why he might choose to forgo an opening statement. While Dobbs claims this is "almost
unheard of," he has provided no evidence that Highland's performance was deficient. Nor
has he explained how this deficiency prejudiced him. See State v. Orr, 262 Kan. 312,
330-31, 940P.2d 42 (1997) (finding that while record was inconclusive on whether trial
counsel's failure to give opening statement was deficient, defendant had still failed to
show prejudice).

Most of Dobb's alleged errors resulted from Highland's trial strategy and thus do
not constitute deficient performance. To the extent that Highland's performance involved
25

any errors, those errors, when considered cumulatively, did not substantially prejudice
Dobbs. While other defense counsel may have chosen a different strategy in defending
Dobbs, the Strickland standard imposes a "highly demanding" burden on Dobbs to prove
"gross incompetence." Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 382, 106 S. Ct. 2574, 91
L. Ed. 2d 305 (1986). Based on the record before us, Dobbs has not met this burden.

Affirmed.