State v. Barahona
Decision Date | 28 April 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 94,130.,94,130. |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Nicomedes BARAHONA, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Heather Cessna, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Bryant T. Barton, assistant county attorney, Barry R. Wilkerson, county attorney, and Phill Kline, attorney general, for appellee.
Before RULON, C.J., MARQUARDT and HILL, JJ.
Defendant Nicomedes Barahona appeals the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, claiming his plea hearing violated his due process rights and that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
The defendant claims the district court erred in summarily denying his request to withdraw his plea. Primarily, the defendant claims the district court violated his due process rights by failing to address the defendant to determine whether the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. We disagree.
After sentencing, a district court may permit a defendant to withdraw a plea, if doing so will correct a manifest injustice. K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 22-3210(d). A decision regarding a motion to withdraw a plea lies entirely within the discretion of the district court. An appellate court will not disturb the exercise of such discretion absent a demonstration of abuse. See State v. Muriithi, 273 Kan. 952, 955, 46 P.3d 1145 (2002). Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable so that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the court. See State v. Murray, 22 Kan.App.2d 340, 346, 916 P.2d 712 (1996).
The requirements in accepting a plea set forth in K.S.A.2005 Supp. 22-3210(a) encapsulate the due process standard announced in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); see Muriithi, 273 Kan. at 964, 46 P.3d 1145. In pertinent part, the statute provides:
"(a) Before or during trial a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may be accepted when:
. . . .
(3) in felony cases the court has addressed the defendant personally and determined that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea."
A review of the plea hearings conducted in this case reveals a personal inquiry of the defendant by the district court about the defendant's understanding of the charges and the potential consequences. The only objection to the sentencing hearing raised by the defendant is the court's failure to address the defendant about the voluntariness of the plea.
While the record clearly reveals the district court's failure to question the defendant about the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea, a failure to strictly comply with the provisions of K.S.A.2005 Supp. 22-3210(a) does not necessarily mandate reversal. See Trotter v. State, 218 Kan. 266, 268-69, 543 P.2d 1023 (1975).
Trotter, 218 Kan. at 269, 543 P.2d 1023.
A review of the plea hearing transcripts leaves no doubt as to the defendant's understanding of his plea. Because of the confusion related to the applicable criminal history score, the defendant was provided with two hearings, rather than just one. During the second hearing, the defendant's attorney informed the court that he had explained the changes in the plea agreement to the defendant. Later, the district court specifically asked the defendant whether the defendant understood what his attorney had just stated and whether the defendant understood the ramifications of the change in the plea agreement. The defendant confirmed that he did.
Furthermore, the plea agreement was accompanied in this case by a written acknowledgment of a waiver of rights, signed by the defendant wherein the defendant acknowledged: "I do this of my own free will and under no threat, intimidation or coercion, and no promises have been made to me by my attorney, any police officer, or any prosecuting attorney as to what I should expect to receive from this."
Most persuasively, however, the defendant wrote a series of letters to the district court in this case. The first, dated October 11, 1994, was received by the district court prior to the plea agreement in this case, which was dated November 7, 1994. Within that letter, the defendant wrote:
Prior to trial, the defendant had admitted committing one of the crimes to which he ultimately entered a plea. On October 8, 10, and 31, the district court received other letters from the defendant. Within these letters, the defendant begged the court for leniency and mercy, but the defendant never proclaimed his innocence of any of the charges he faced. There is nothing to indicate these letters were coerced in any manner or that the defendant desired a trial, which would undermine his later acknowledgment of the voluntariness of his plea within the plea agreement.
Although Kansas courts have not previously defined the term "manifest injustice" within the context of a motion to withdraw a plea, cases involving other contexts in which that standard has been applied have equated "manifest injustice" to something obviously unfair or shocking to the conscience. See State v. Turley, 17 Kan.App.2d 484, Syl. ¶ 2, 840 P.2d 529, rev. denied 252 Kan. 1094 (1992) ( ); State v. Cramer, 17 Kan.App.2d 623, 635, 841 P.2d 1111 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan. 1094 (1993) (same).
One consideration courts have given to a request of a defendant to withdraw a plea is the timeliness of the request. See United States v. Graves, 106 F.3d 342, 343 (10th Cir.1997) ( ); People v. Castaneda, 37 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1618, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 666 (1995) ( ); Commonwealth v. Gonzales, 43 Mass. App. 926, 685 N.E.2d 1163 (1997) ( ); Doughman v. State, 351 N.W.2d 671, 675 (Minn.App.1984) ( ); State v. Tweed, 312 Mont. 482, 490, 59 P.3d 1105 (2002) ( ); Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563, 1 P.3d 969 (2000) ( ); State v. Marshburn, 109 N.C.App. 105, 108, 425 S.E.2d 715 (1993) ( ); State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235, 239, 773 N.E.2d 522 (2002) ( ).
The defendant filed this motion to withdraw his plea nearly 10 years after being sentenced. While his criminal history score continues to reflect the convictions resulting from his pleas, he has effectively served the entire underlying sentence for these crimes. The record of the original proceedings disputes the defendant's claim that he maintained his innocence but was pressured into a plea by his attorney.
Under these circumstances, no reasonable person in the position of the district court judge would conclude that enforcing the plea agreement was obviously unfair or shocking to the conscience. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea.
Alternatively, the defendant argues the district court should have allowed him to withdraw his plea due to the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Again, the standard the defendant needs to meet is manifest injustice. K.S.A.2005 Supp. 22-3210(d).
To demonstrate constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant must satisfy a two-prong test: (1) the performance of counsel must be so deficient as to impinge upon the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (2) the deficient performance must be of a serious nature, prejudicing the movant's ability to obtain a fair trial. See State v. Rice, 261 Kan. 567, 599, 932 P.2d 981 (1997) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 104 S.Ct. 2052 [1984]).
"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Young, 106,451.
...preponderance of the evidence that Mank's representation was deficient and prejudiced him. See State v. Barahona, 35 Kan.App.2d 605, 611, 132 P.3d 959,rev. denied 282 Kan. 791(2006). Under the first prong, the appellate court must strongly presume that counsel's performance fell within the ......
-
State v. Edwards
...... Harris v. State, 288 Kan. 414, 416, 204 P.3d 557 (2009). Edwards has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Cooper's representation was deficient and prejudiced him. See State v. Barahona, 35 Kan.App.2d 605, 611, 132 P.3d 959, rev. denied 282 Kan. 791 (2006). A. Amber Edwards At the evidentiary hearing, Edwards testified that Cooper “deceived” him into believing that Amber could not be called to testify on his behalf at trial to rebut Detective Crump's claim ......
-
State v. Jackson
...withdraw the plea." Manifest injustice exists if something is "obviously unfair or shocking to the conscience." State v. Barahona, 35 Kan.App.2d 605, 608–09, 132 P.3d 959 (2006). In determining whether the defendant has established manifest injustice, this court should consider the followin......
-
State of Kan. v. ATTEBERRY
...“obviously unfair or shocking to the conscience” if the defendant is not allowed to withdraw his or her plea. See State v. Barahona, 35 Kan.App.2d 605, 608-09, 132 P.3d 959, rev. denied 282 Kan. 791 (2006). Our courts have generally considered three factors in evaluating both pre-and post-s......