State v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 18 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 106,522.,106,522. |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Christopher THOMPSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Gregory L. Waller, Judge.
Catherine A. Zigtema and Carl F.A. Maughan, of Maughan & Maughan LC, of Wichita, for appellant.
Matt J. Moloney, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before ATCHESON, P.J., BUSER and STANDRIDGE, JJ.
In keeping with a plea agreement, Christopher Thompson pled guilty to 13 serious felonies which occurred during an armed home invasion. After his pleas, Thompson filed two pro se motions to dismiss his trial counsel, a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, and a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. The district court denied Thompson's motions. At sentencing, the district court did not follow the recommendations contained in the plea agreement but imposed a lengthier controlling sentence.
On appeal, Thompson challenges his convictions and sentences on four grounds. First, he contends the district court abused its discretion by failing to appoint new counsel. Second, Thompson claims the district court erred by denying his request to withdraw his guilty pleas. Third, he asserts error because the district court denied his motion to dismiss based on statutory speedy trial grounds. Finally, Thompson claims the State violated his due process rights by making comments at sentencing which undermined the agreed-upon sentencing recommendations in the plea agreement. Finding no error, we affirm the district court.
On May 16, 2009, Thompson participated in an aggravated robbery of an occupied home in Wichita. During the robbery, a woman was raped and sodomized, a man was beaten and shot several times, and the assailants threatened to kill one of the children by holding a gun to the child's head.
On August 18, 2009, in a 13–count complaint, the State charged Thompson, as either a principal or an aider and abettor, with two counts of aggravated robbery, four counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, one count of rape, two counts of aggravated battery, one count of attempted first degree murder, one count of criminal threat, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated kidnapping.
The district court appointed a public defender, Russell Coleman, to represent Thompson. Prior to trial, on May 4, 2010, Thompson filed a pro se motion to dismiss Coleman for ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular, Thompson alleged a breakdown in communication, failure to file certain motions, and failure to timely provide him with copies of the State's discovery. After listening to comments from Thompson, Coleman, and the prosecutor, District Judge Eric Yost denied Thompson's request and instructed Coleman to provide Thompson with discovery materials.
About 2 months later, on July 2, 2010, Thompson filed another pro se motion to dismiss Coleman. In this motion, he alleged that Coleman refused to meet with him and had not provided copies of the State's discovery. On the Friday before trial, the district court held a hearing to consider Thompson's motion. In order to examine Thompson's relationship with Coleman “a little bit more carefully,” District Judge John Kisner, Jr., conducted most of the hearing outside of the prosecutor's presence. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Kisner held that Thompson had failed to show “justifiable dissatisfaction” with Colman, which necessitated the appointment of substitute counsel. Judge Kisner also confirmed that Coleman and Thompson were willing to work together in the future.
Three days later, on July 26, 2010, Thompson pled guilty as charged in exchange for the State's favorable sentencing recommendations which would result in a controlling sentence of 257 months. Before accepting the pleas, District Judge Warren Wilbert had an extended colloquy with Thompson to establish his knowing and voluntary assent to the plea agreement and waiver of his constitutional and statutory rights. Judge Wilbert also verified that Thompson was satisfied with Coleman's representation and that the communication problems had been resolved. After ascertaining a factual basis, Judge Wilbert accepted Thompson's pleas as “knowingly, intelligently, freely and voluntarily” entered and adjudged him guilty of all 13 felony charges.
On September 8, 2010, prior to sentencing, Thompson filed a pro se motion to dismiss the charges based on speedy trial grounds. According to Thompson, the State failed to insure his right to a speedy trial, because more than 180 days elapsed by the time he entered his guilty pleas “due to confusion, and distress.”
Six days later, on September 14, 2010, Thompson filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas due to ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular, Thompson alleged that Coleman was ineffective because of his continued lack of communication, his refusal to file motions, and his request for continuances without Thompson's knowledge or consent, Thompson also claimed that Coleman had coerced him into pleading guilty.
On December 3, 2010, the district court held an evidentiary hearing to consider Thompson's motion to withdraw pleas. Due to Thompson's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court appointed Quentin Pittman to represent him. After testimony by Thompson and Coleman, Judge Wilbert—who accepted Thompson's plea—denied the motion finding that Thompson failed to show good cause to set aside the pleas.
Thompson was sentenced on February 4, 2011. At the hearing, the district court did not follow the recommendations in the plea agreement and sentenced Thompson to a controlling prison term of 330 months followed by 36 months' postrelease supervision. Thompson filed a timely appeal.
Thompson contends the district court abused its discretion when it denied his two pretrial motions to dismiss Coleman for ineffective assistance of counsel because his relationship with Coleman had deteriorated to the point where Coleman could no longer provide competent representation.
In Thompson's first motion, filed on May 4, 2010, Thompson alleged that he had not heard from Coleman since November 2009, Coleman had not filed motions Thompson had requested, and Coleman had failed to provide him with copies of the State's discovery documents.
At the hearing on the motion, Judge Yost heard from Thompson, Coleman, and the prosecutor. Thompson's argument consisted of the following statement:
“I filed—I've been writin' motions myself and they haven't got [ sic ] filed. And when Mr. Coleman [came to] see me, I asked him to file these motions for me and he [told] me oh, you got what I got. And the only thing I have is a police report. I don't have a full motion [for] discovery, I don't have a bill of particulars that I filed for.
In response, Coleman explained that some of the motions would “probably be filed prior to trial” while others would not be filed. Coleman indicated that, despite Thompson's assertions, he had discussed some of Thompson's concerns with him. Coleman also noted that Thompson's case was “very complicated” and had gone on for “some time” because he was the last of several defendants to be tried.
For its part, the State indicated that Coleman had been “working hard” on the case, and the prosecutor had e-mails and phone calls “to prove it.” The prosecutor also agreed with Coleman that the case was complicated due to “lots of scientific evidence, and voluminous amounts of discovery and testing.”
Judge Yost denied Thompson's request for new counsel but instructed Coleman to provide Thompson with “any discovery that's been provided by the State that hasn't yet been turned over to [him] .”
About 2 months later, on July 2, 2010, Thompson filed another pro se motion to dismiss Coleman. Thompson alleged that Coleman's failure to meet with him had continued, and Coleman had not provided him with copies of discovery. According to Thompson, Coleman “show[ed] no interest in [his] case and he [was] not ready or willing to help [him] fight” the charges against him. Three days before trial, on July 23, 2010, the district court held a hearing to consider Thompson's second motion to dismiss Coleman. To examine Thompson's relationship with Coleman “a little bit more carefully,” Judge Kisner conducted most of the hearing outside of the State's presence.
Judge Kisner noted that, according to jail logs, in the last 9 months Coleman had visited with Thompson on four occasions. Because the two men had met “a couple of times” since the filing of Thompson's motion, Judge Kisner asked Thompson if they had been “able to work anything out.” Thompson replied in the negative but he confirmed having a brief visit from Coleman and another visit from his assistant. Thompson still complained of “no communication” and, as a result, he felt his “case [was] not ready” for trial. Thompson also asserted that he still did not have a complete copy of the State's discovery.
Coleman responded that although he had not frequently communicated with Thompson between February and July 2010, he was ready for trial. Coleman explained that he had discussed trial strategy with Thompson “early on,” he was “pretty clear” on how the witnesses were going to testify, and he was knowledgeable about the facts, allegations, and evidence. Coleman reported that he had successfully contacted all of Thompson's witnesses, except one alibi witness who...
To continue reading
Request your trial