State v. Saylor

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

State v. Saylor

Case Number
Call Date
May 25, 2016
Court Number
Case Summary

S-15-0329, State v. James Saylor (appellant)

Lancaster County, Hon. Steven D. Burns

Attorneys: Kimberly A. Klein (Attorney General's Office); Joshua D. Barber (Barber & Barber, P.C., L.L.O.) (appellant)

Civil: Postconviction relief

Proceedings below: Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Appellant's motion for postconviction relief.

Issue: The district court erred in (1) its determination that Appellant was not prejudiced, (2) failing to presume prejudice under United States v. Cronic, (3) failing to find cumulative prejudice of all of Appellant's claims, (4) precluding the testimony of William Gallup, (5) considering a) Appellant's taped 'admissions', b) a letter to Appellant's brother, and c) possible testimony by Michael Sapp in its prejudice analysis, (6) finding Appellant's trial and appellate counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, (7) determining the benefits secured to Appellant by the agreement, (8) its findings regarding the medical evidence, (9) finding Appellant's right to a speedy trial was not violated, (10) finding Appellant failed to prove prosecutorial misconduct, (11) finding Appellant was not coerced regarding the trial stipulation, 12) finding misrepresentations that Kutsch changed his testimony was not misconduct, 13) finding that Appellant did not establish that the prosecutor failed to disclose any exculpatory evidence to the defense, 14) finding the County Attorney's continued involvement was not prosecutorial misconduct, 15) finding that it was not misconduct to fail to inquire of Appellant regarding his right to confrontation, and 16) denying Appellant's motion to reopen.