State v. Denmark–wagner

• Decision Date: 12 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 102,234.,102,234.
• Citation: 292 Kan. 870,258 P.3d 960
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee,v.Charles DENMARK–WAGNER, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

292 Kan. 870

258 P.3d 960

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Charles DENMARK–WAGNER, Appellant.

No. 102,234.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Aug. 12, 2011.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Under K.S.A. 22–3210(d), a defendant's guilty plea may, within the discretion of the district court, be withdrawn prior to sentencing for good cause shown.

2. Family pressure to accept a plea agreement does not constitute coercion so as to render a defendant's guilty plea involuntary, when the defendant acknowledges that the decision to enter the plea was ultimately his or her own choice.

3. A defendant's claim that he or she should be permitted to withdraw his or her plea for good cause because he or she misunderstood the meaning of “life” or “life in prison” is meritless, when the district judge confirmed the defendant's comprehension of the possibility of imprisonment for the rest of his or her natural life at the plea hearing and the defendant otherwise participated actively and sensibly in the proceedings.

4. During a plea hearing, a district court judge is not required to ask a defendant specifically about medications the defendant may be taking, as long as the court ensures: (1) that the defendant is informed of the maximum penalty that may be imposed if the defendant accepts the plea, (2) that the defendant understands the nature of the charge, and (3) that the defendant understands the consequences of pleading guilty. When a defendant denies in a plea agreement that a prescription drug taken was impairing his or her mental faculties or judgment and nothing during the plea hearing indicates otherwise, the district judge does not abuse his or her discretion by failing to ask the defendant about the drug or its effects.

5. An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time, pursuant to K.S.A. 22–3504(1). The question of whether a sentence is illegal is subject to unlimited appellate review. A sentence that does not conform to the statutory provision is illegal.

6. A sentence of life imprisonment is an indeterminate sentence under which a defendant is subject to parole, rather than a determinate sentence under which a defendant will be placed on postrelease supervision. A sentence of lifetime postrelease supervision for an off-grid crime does not conform to the statutory scheme and is illegal.

7. A defendant with only one eligible conviction under K.S.A. 22–4906(a) is required to register as an offender for a period of 10 years, not life. A sentence of lifetime offender registration when a defendant has only one eligible conviction does not conform to the statutory scheme and is illegal.

Heather R. Cessna, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.Clay Britton, assistant solicitor general, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by BEIER, J.:

Defendant Charles Denmark–Wagner appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to one count of felony first-degree murder. He also challenges his sentence to lifetime postrelease and the district judge's order that he register as a violent offender for his lifetime.

This case arose out of the November 2008 murder of Alesia Dorris–Graham in her home in Pratt County. Denmark–Wagner and codefendant Daniel John Riendeau went to Dorris–Graham's home to purchase prescription drugs from her. When she refused to sell, the defendants took the drugs by force. Riendeau confronted Dorris–Graham in her bedroom and stabbed her to death.

The complaint filed against Denmark–Wagner contained four counts: Count 1—felony first-degree murder (K.S.A. 21–3401[b] ) with the underlying felony of aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21–3427) and/or aggravated burglary (K.S.A. 21–3716) or, in the alternative, felony first-degree murder (K.S.A. 21–3401 [b] ) with the underlying felony of attempted possession of opiates and/or narcotics (K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 65–4160; K.S.A. 22–3301); Count 2—aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21–3427); Count 3—aggravated burglary (K.S.A. 21–3716); Count 4—attempted possession of opiates, opium, narcotic drugs or designated stimulants (K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 65–4160; K.S.A. 21–3301).

Denmark–Wagner entered into a written plea agreement on February 25, 2009, on Count 1, on the theory that he participated in a murder committed in the course of an aggravated robbery and/or aggravated burglary. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss Counts 2, 3, and 4. The plea agreement stated: “I understand that the mandatory sentence for Count [1] is life in prison and that I will be sentenced to life in prison.” At the time of his plea agreement, Denmark–Wagner was 18 years old and had completed 12 years of schooling. Through his attorney, he stated that he would accept the plea on February 13, 2009.

Denmark–Wagner's written plea agreement repeated that his sentence would be “[l]ife in prison and a fine of up to $300,000.00,” and Denmark–Wagner acknowledged: “I understand that if I enter a plea of guilty this court must impose a life sentence against me.” In the agreement, Denmark–Wagner also signed the following statement:

“After fully discussing my potential defenses to the charges in this case, the legal options available to me in these proceedings, and the above-mentioned matters with my attorney, I advise this court that I understand it is my decision, alone, whether to accept or reject the plea agreement and whether to enter a plea of guilty to the charge(s) herein. My decision to accept the plea agreement and change my plea is completely voluntary without anyone having threatened me or promised me anything of benefit, and it is without duress or coercion other than that which the plea agreement provides.”

In the agreement, Denmark–Wagner further stated that the only drug or medication he had taken during the preceding 48 hours was “trazadone,” affirming that “[a]ny such drugs or medications do not impair my mental faculties or [judgment]. I remain in full control of my mental faculties or [judgment].”

At the plea hearing on February 25, 2009, the district judge thoroughly described all of the rights that Denmark–Wagner would waive by pleading guilty and confirmed that Denmark–Wagner understood his rights. When asked, “Are you entering a plea of guilty to this crime because you are, in fact, guilty of this crime?” Denmark–Wagner asked, “May I have a second to talk to my lawyer?” After being permitted to consult counsel, he answered, “Yes, sir.” During the hearing, Denmark–Wagner also confirmed that he had signed the written plea agreement and that he did not have any questions regarding the document. He denied that any threats or promises had been made to induce him to plead guilty rather than proceed to trial. Further, Denmark–Wagner's counsel stated, “I have personally spent numerous hours with Mr. Denmark–Wagner going over the evidence, possible defenses that could have been raised[;] and I am satisfied that he is doing this intelligently and freely and voluntarily.” The district judge also asked Denmark–Wagner about his understanding of the sentence he was facing, “[Y]ou understand that the penalty for murder in the first-degree is life in prison, a fine of up to $300,000, or both a prison sentence and a fine and that potentially you could spend the rest of your natural life in the custody of the Secretary of Corrections?” Denmark–Wagner responded affirmatively.

Denmark–Wagner moved to withdraw his plea on March 9, 2009, before his sentencing. In his motion, Denmark–Wagner argued that his plea of guilty was not entered into voluntarily because “he entered the guilty plea as a result of pressure placed upon him by his family to accept the plea agreement.” He also argued that his plea of guilty was not entered into intelligently because “he did not fully understand the possible sentence that he would receive.”

At the hearing on the motion to withdraw 2 days later, Denmark–Wagner testified that his mother and sister pressured him into accepting the plea because “[m]y family thought it would be better for me to go so they can see me sooner and just be able to hug me and stuff during visitation instead of waiting and seeing me through the glass.” Denmark–Wagner stated that he agreed to the plea because he “didn't want to just up and say the opposite of what everyone wanted [him] to do.” During his cross-examination by the State, Denmark–Wagner engaged in the following exchange:

“Q. Okay, but ultimately it was your decision to go ahead and enter the plea?

“A. Yeah, I did. They can't say it for me.

“Q. But ultimately, I mean, I'm not trying to trick you. Ultimately it's your decision to do it?

“A. Yes.

“Q. Okay. And now you have second thoughts about it?

“A. Well, I didn't—my thought of what I wanted to do was not take the plea.

“Q. Okay. Well, you're the one that wanted—told your attorney you wanted to take the plea, right?

“A. That's because my mother told me.”

Denmark–Wagner also testified that he did not understand the possible sentence, believing he would be released from prison in 20 years rather than merely be eligible for parole in 20 years. As his explanation for what led him to this belief, Denmark–Wagner said, “I must have misread things wrong because that's how I assumed it would be.” On this subject, Denmark–Wagner engaged in the following exchange with the State:

“Q. ... You signed a plea agreement in this case, is that correct?

“A. Yes, sir.

“Q. The plea agreement said that you understood that the Count 1, the penalty is life in prison, correct?

“A. Yes, with getting out after 20.

“Q. And you read that life in prison, right?

“A. And I get out after 20.

“Q. Does it say that in the plea agreement?

“A. It says somewhere.

“Q. It does? And so it should be in the plea agreement if it says that, right?

“A. Yeah.

“Q. Well, because the plea agreement I have only says the penalty is life in prison. Where [does] the get out after 20 come from?

“A. What I understood from the plea agreement ...