State v. Newman, No. 118,608
| Decision Date | 14 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 118,608 |
| Citation | 457 P.3d 923 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Coty Rylan NEWMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Peter Maharry, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, was on the brief for appellant.
Kristafer R. Ailslieger, deputy solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
Coty Newman pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder and attempted second-degree intentional murder. Before sentencing, Newman moved to withdraw those pleas. The district court denied his motions and imposed a life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction and a consecutive 59 months' imprisonment for the second-degree murder conviction. The district court also ordered lifetime postrelease supervision for the first-degree murder conviction and 36 months of postrelease supervision for the second-degree murder conviction. Newman appeals the denials of his motions to withdraw his pleas and the imposition of lifetime supervision. We affirm the denials of his motions but vacate the lifetime postrelease supervision.
On October 27, 2010, the State charged Coty Newman with first-degree felony murder; alternative counts of attempted second-degree intentional murder or aggravated battery; attempt to distribute marijuana; and conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The State later amended the complaint to add first-degree intentional murder as an alternative to first-degree felony murder.
Newman agreed to plead guilty to first-degree felony murder and attempted second-degree intentional murder and, in exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the alternative and remaining counts. The parties agreed to recommend a life sentence for the first-degree murder charge and a consecutive 59 months' imprisonment for the second-degree murder charge. They further agreed that Newman would not be eligible for parole until he served 20 years and 59 months in prison and that neither party would request a departure sentence.
On March 22, 2013, the district court held a plea hearing. Newman pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder and attempted second-degree intentional murder. The district court found that Newman voluntarily entered into the agreement and accepted his pleas.
On July 18, 2013, Newman filed a motion to withdraw his pleas. He argued that the court should allow the withdrawal for two reasons: his mother had been hospitalized during the plea hearing, which caused him to experience extreme physical and emotional distress; and he had newly discovered evidence that would exonerate him. The State responded to this motion, arguing that Newman had not indicated he was distressed during the hearing and that the newly discovered evidence was not credible.
At a hearing on Newman's motion, Newman's mother testified that she had been hospitalized on March 21, 2013, due to complications related to diabetes and had spent a day and a half in the intensive care unit. She also testified that she and Newman discussed over the phone ways to withdraw his plea. The district court admitted State exhibits that both parties stipulated represented recorded jail calls between Newman and his mother.
James Martin also testified at the hearing. He stated that he met Newman while incarcerated at the Ellsworth Correctional Facility while Newman was there as a result of the charges in this case. Martin stated that he had been present at the time of the alleged killing and that Newman, while present, had not shot anyone.
After this hearing, the State filed a supplemental response and motion to strike Martin's testimony. In this motion, the State alleged that Martin had been incarcerated at the time of the alleged crimes and, consequently, could not have been a witness to those crimes. At a second hearing, a records clerk with the Ellsworth Correctional Facility testified that a man named James Martin with the same date of birth, social security number, and DOC number as the James Martin who testified had been in custody at the time of the alleged crimes.
On October 17, 2013, the district court denied Newman's motion to withdraw his pleas.
On October 25, 2013, Newman filed a pro se "Motion to Vacate Plea Bargain Due to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel."
At a hearing on this motion, Newman testified that Jon Whitton had been his counsel at the time he was considering a plea and that he had told Whitton on the day of the plea hearing that he did not want to plead guilty. Newman stated that Whitton had informed him he could plead guilty and then "pull it back" if he "g[o]t cold feet" and wanted to go to trial. Newman said that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known he could not withdraw the plea for any reason. Newman also testified that, before pleading, he told Whitton about some possible exculpatory witnesses and Whitton told him he would look into them after he entered his plea. During the State's cross-examination of Newman, Newman testified that he remembered telling his mother on a phone call that, if his original motion to withdraw his plea did not work, he was going to have to claim his counsel had been ineffective.
Newman's wife also testified at the hearing. She stated that she had not wanted Newman to plead guilty but Whitton had informed her and Newman on the day of the plea hearing that Newman only had an hour to decide whether to accept the plea and could later withdraw it.
Whitton also testified at the hearing. He stated that he never told Newman he could withdraw his plea based on "cold feet." He informed Newman that it is possible to withdraw a plea but it very rarely happens and that Newman should not enter a plea based upon an understanding that he could withdraw it at a later time. Newman asked for an example of when a defendant can withdraw a plea, and Whitton told him a court will permit the withdrawal based on ineffective assistance of counsel or newly discovered evidence. Whitton also stated that he told Newman it is much more difficult to withdraw a plea after sentencing. Whitton testified that he did not believe Newman mentioned any exculpatory witnesses during this conversation with whom Whitton had not already spoken.
On June 10, 2014, the district court denied Newman's second motion to withdraw his pleas.
On July 23, 2014, the district court sentenced Newman to life in prison with no chance of parole for 20 years for the first-degree murder conviction and 59 months in prison for the attempted second-degree murder conviction, to be served consecutively. The court also imposed lifetime postrelease supervision for the first-degree murder conviction and 36 months of postrelease supervision for the second-degree murder conviction.
Newman appealed the denials of his motions to withdraw his pleas and the district court's imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision to this court.
Withdraw of pleas
Newman argues that the district court erred when it denied his motions to withdraw his pleas.
A district court may allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea for good cause any time before sentencing. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3210(d)(1). In determining whether the defendant has shown good cause, the court generally considers the following three "benchmark" factors: "(1) whether the defendant was represented by competent counsel; (2) whether the defendant was misled, coerced, mistreated, or unfairly taken advantage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peterson
... ... district court's ultimate decision great deference ... Miller-El , 537 U.S. at 339-40; see also State v ... Newman , 311 Kan. 155, 160, 457 P.3d 923 (2020) (noting ... deference due district court's credibility determinations ... generally). We have ... ...
-
State v. Waisner
... ... this court cannot make factual findings or reweigh evidence ... under our abuse of discretion standard. See State v ... Newman , 311 Kan. 155, 159, 457 P.3d 923 (2020). Waisner ... thus fails to present an argument or reference any specific ... findings that this ... ...
-
State v. Barrager
...coerced, mistreated, or unfairly taken advantage of; and (3) whether the plea was fairly and understandingly made. State v. Newman , 311 Kan. 155, 158-59, 457 P.3d 923 (2020) ; State v. Edgar , 281 Kan. 30, 127 P.3d 986 (2006). These factors are not exclusive. State v. DeAnda , 307 Kan. 500......
-
State v. Hensley
...mistreated, or unfairly taken advantage of; and (3) whether the plea was fairly and understandingly made. State v. Newman , 311 Kan. 1215, 1218-19, 457 P.3d 923 (2020) ; State v. Edgar , 281 Kan. 30, 36, 127 P.3d 986 (2006). These factors do not form an exclusive list, and the district cour......