Skip Maine state header navigation
Kinzel v. State Download as PDF Back to Opinions Page MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2002 ME 84 Docket: Aro-01-351 Argued: May 9, 2002 Decided: May 29, 2002 Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ. AARON KINZEL v. STATE OF MAINE 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 (2000) (citing Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327 (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.
Attorney for appellant: Eugene J. McLaughlin Jr., Esq. (orally) P O Box 589 Presque Isle, Me 04769 Attorneys for State: G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General Charles k. Leadbetter, State Solicitor (orally) 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0006 Neale T. Adams, District Attorney 144 Sweden Street Caribou, ME 04736