B.S., In Interest of
Decision Date | 15 March 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 65455,65455 |
Citation | 807 P.2d 692,15 Kan.App.2d 338 |
Parties | In the Interest of B.S. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The provisions of K.S.A. 38-1633(b) require that the trial court strictly comply with the requirements to inform a respondent of the nature of the charge, the presumption of innocence, the right to a speedy hearing, the right to subpoena witnesses, the right to testify or not to testify, and the dispositional alternatives.
2. If the respondent admits to the allegations or pleads nolo contendere, the provisions of K.S.A. 38-1633(c) require that the trial court strictly comply with the requirements therein before accepting the admission or plea.
3. In an appeal from the trial court's denial of a juvenile respondent's motion to withdraw his admission to an allegation of indecent liberties with a minor, the record is examined and it is held that it is reversible error not to advise the respondent of his rights pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1633(b) and to determine that the admission was knowingly and voluntarily made and that there was a factual basis for the admission pursuant to K.S.A. 38-1633(c).
Michael G. Highland, Bonner Springs, for appellant.
Frank E. Kohl, County Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before REES, P.J., and GERNON and LEWIS, JJ.
B.S., a minor, appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his admission in a juvenile proceeding.
B.S. was charged as a juvenile with indecent liberties with a minor. B.S. admitted his involvement on advice of his court-appointed counsel. B.S. later filed a motion to withdraw his admission. The court stated that, although B.S. was not informed of his rights as expressly required by K.S.A. 38-1633, the court was confident that B.S.' counsel had informed B.S. of his rights.
The relevant parts of K.S.A. 38-1633 state:
The record contains no mention that B.S. was informed of his rights under K.S.A. 38-1633(b). Instead, at the hearing on the motion to withdraw, the court stated that it was the "practice" of the court not to inform a juvenile of his or her rights, but instead to rely on the attorney appointed to represent the minor to inform the juvenile of those rights.
This practice may be well intended, but it does not comport with the statute. K.S.A. 38-1633(b) expressly requires the court to inform the minor of the information specifically contained in the statute.
Kansas courts have not interpreted this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re I.A.
...a plea, including the right to a trial, the right against compelled testimony, and potential sentences. See In re B.S. , 15 Kan. App. 2d 338, 339, 807 P.2d 692 (1991). The statute did not, however, require the district court to inform a juvenile of the right to appeal. The district court ad......
-
In re I.A.
... ... The ... Mathews framework requires a balancing of three ... factors: ... "First, the private interest that will be affected by ... the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous ... deprivation of such interest through the ... ...
-
In re P.L.B.
...contained in the juvenile plea statute. 260 Kan. at 856, 925 P.2d 415. The next case cited by the C.S.G. court was In re B.S., 15 Kan.App.2d 338, 807 P.2d 692 (1991). In that case, this court allowed a juvenile offender to withdraw his admission to indecent liberties with a minor because th......
-
Taylor v. State
... ... Ferretti overheard Taylor express a desire to testify, but O'Hara said it was not in Taylor's best interest to testify. Taylor repeated his wish to testify, but O'Hara said "no." ... Taylor testified that after his preliminary hearing he ... ...